Q1.
A psychologist was interested in the effects of violent computer games on aggression in young boys. Following appropriate ethical procedures she set up a study in which she identified ten boys who played violent computer games for at least two hours a day (Group A), and another group of ten boys who did not play violent computer games (Group B). The boys were systematically observed in their school playground on five separate occasions and the total number of aggressive behaviours they demonstrated was recorded. The data are given in the table below:
The effects of playing violent computer games on aggressive behaviour in boys
 
Group A	Number of aggressive acts	Group B	Number of aggressive acts	
1	19	1	8	
2	9	2	7	
3	3	3	11	
4	18	4	7	
5	13	5	6	
6	16	6	24	
7	5	7	9	
8	3	8	10	
9	7	9	5	
10	35	10	10	
Median	 	Median	 	
Complete the table by calculating the median for the two groups. Why did the psychologist use the median as a measure of central tendency rather than the mean?
(Total 4 marks)
Q2.
Prison staff compared two methods of managing anger in offenders. One group of offenders took part in cognitive therapy. Another group of offenders took part in discussion therapy.
After one month following the training, levels of anger for each individual were rated by prison staff on a scale of 0 – 100. The results are given in the table below:
Ratings of anger in offenders given either systematic CBT anger management training or general advice
 
Cognitive Group	Anger rating	Discussion group	Anger rating	
1	37	1	44	
2	45	2	22	
3	23	3	74	
4	17	4	36	
5	41	5	66	
6	32	6	63	
7	27	7	44	
8	26	8	81	
9	38	9	56	
10	52	10	45	
Median	 	Median	 	
Complete the table by calculating the median for the two groups. Show your working.
Why did the psychologist use the median as a measure of central tendency rather than the mean?
(Total 4 marks)
Q3.
A psychologist was interested in the role of sensation-seeking in the development of addictive behaviour. She tested ten participants addicted to smoking (Group A) and ten participants who had no addictive behaviours (Group B). Each participant was given a questionnaire that measured sensation-seeking. Scores on the questionnaire are given in the table below:
Sensation seeking scores for those with addictive behaviours and for those with no addictions
 
Group A (Addicted to smoking)	Score on sensation-seeking questionnaire	Group B (No addictive behaviours)	Score on sensation-seeking questionnaire	
1	65	1	16	
2	32	2	25	
3	25	3	27	
4	29	4	24	
5	28	5	59	
6	30	6	26	
7	18	7	33	
8	30	8	21	
9	35	9	18	
10	28	10	23	
Median	 	Median	 	
Complete the table by calculating the median and range for the two groups. Why did the psychologist use the median rather than the mode?
(Total 4 marks)
Q4.
 
Two researchers wanted to investigate the influence of early attachment on later relationships. They asked 20 teenagers aged 14-16 to write an essay on the importance of family and friends. Ten of the teenagers had been raised by their mother and father. The other ten had spent the first five years of their lives in care (and were then adopted).
The researchers used content analysis to analyse the teenagers’ essays. The researchers devised a set of categories to do this, two of which were ‘references to love’ and ‘references to fear of rejection’.	
(a)  Explain one way in which the researchers may have checked whether their categories were reliable.
(3)
The results of the investigation for references to love and references to fear of rejection are shown in the table below:
The total number of references to love and references to fear of rejection in essays written by the care group and the non-care group
 
 	Total number of references to love	Total number of references to fear of rejection	
Non-care group	40	5	
Care group	16	15	
(b)  Draw a suitable graphical display to represent the data in the table.
 
(3)
(c)  Express the total number of references to love in the essays written by the care group as a fraction of the total number of references to love in the essays overall. Show your calculations.
(3)
(d)  The researchers decided to interview some of the teenagers about their early life experiences.
Explain how the data collected from the interview might have improved upon the data collected from the content analysis.
(3)
(e)  Explain Bowlby’s monotropic theory. Refer to the data from the table in part (a) in your answer.
(6)
(Total 18 marks)
Q5.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
Following previous research indicating the social benefits of green space in urban areas, two psychology students decided to observe social behaviour in public spaces. They focused on two neighbouring towns, Greensville where most public spaces were planted with flowers and vegetables, and Brownton where most public spaces were paved with concrete.
The students compared the instances of considerate behaviours in the two towns. Considerate behaviour categories included putting litter in the bin, having a dog on a lead and riding a bike with care.
The observations were carried out in four different areas of a similar size in each town on weekdays between the hours of 4.30pm and 6.00pm. The students worked together to ensure inter-observer reliability, recording each target behaviour whenever it occurred.	
(a)  Should the hypothesis for this research be directional or non-directional? Explain your answer.
(2)
(b)  Before the observation could begin, the students needed to operationalise the behaviour category ‘riding a bike with care’.
Explain what is meant by operationalisation and suggest two ways in which ‘riding a bike with care’ could have been operationalised.
(4)
(c)  The students thought that having a dog on a lead was a useful measure of considerate behaviour because it had face validity. Explain what is meant by face validity in this context.
(3)
(d)  Identify and briefly outline two other types of validity in psychological research.
(4)
(e)  Identify the behaviour sampling method used by the students. Shade one box only.
 
A	Time sampling		
B	Pair sampling		
C	Event sampling		
D	Target sampling		
(1)
(f)  Explain how inter-observer reliability could be ensured by working as a pair.
(3)
(g)  The data for considerate behaviours is shown in the Table 1.
Table 1
 
Considerate behaviours	
 	Litter in bin	Dog on lead	Riding bike with care	
Greensville	23	23	10	
Browntonn	10	17	9	
The students noted that overall more considerate behaviours occurred in Greensville than in Brownton.
Calculate the ratio of considerate behaviours observed in Greensville to considerate behaviours observed in Brownton. Show your workings and present your answer in the simplest form.
(3)
(h)  The students carried out a Chi-square test on their data.
Explain why the Chi-square test was an appropriate test to use in this case.
(3)
(i)  In order to interpret the results of the Chi-square test the students first needed to work out the degrees of freedom. They used the following formula.
Degrees of freedom (df) = (r–1) x (c–1)
r = number of rows and c = number of columns
Calculate the degrees of freedom for the data in Table 1. Show your workings.
(2)
(j)  The calculated value of Chi-square was 6.20. Referring to the Table 2 below, state whether or not the result of the Chi-square test is significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Justify your answer.
Table 2
 
df	Levels of significance for a one-tailed test	
 	0.10	0.05	0.025	0.01	
 	Levels of significance for a two-tailed test	
 	0.20	0.20	0.05	0.02	
1	1.64	2.71	3.84	5.41	
2	3.22	4.60	5.99	7.82	
3	4.64	6.25	7.82	9.84	
4	5.99	7.78	9.49	11.67	
To be significant at the level shown the calculated value of Chi Square must be equal to or greater than the critical/table value
(3)
(k)  In the discussion section of their report of the investigation the students wanted to further discuss their results in relation to levels of significance.
Write a short paragraph the students could use to do this.
(4)
(l)  As a follow-up to their observation the students decided to interview some of their peers about inconsiderate behaviours in their 6th Form Centre. The interviews were recorded.
Explain how the students could develop their interview findings by carrying out a content analysis and why content analysis would be appropriate in this case.
(3)
(m)  Suggest one inconsiderate behaviour that the students might focus on in their content analysis.
(1)
(Total 36 marks)
Q6.
Design an experiment to investigate the effect of indoor plants on mood in office workers. For your measure of mood you should devise a measure that would give data suitable for testing at the ordinal level of measurement.
In your answer you should provide details of:
•   Design – include reference to the experimental design, variables and controls
•   Materials/Apparatus – describe any special materials required
•   Data analysis that could be used – include reference to descriptive and inferential analysis.
Justify your choices.
(Total 12 marks)
Q7.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
In a study of parasocial relationships a researcher studied male and female attachments to their favourite film star. An overall attachment score was calculated on the basis of answers to a questionnaire. A high score indicated a strong attachment and a low score indicated little attachment.
The scores are shown in the table below.	
 
Males	Females	
4	5	
6	6	
2	6	
2	7	
3	2	
3	4	
3	5	
8	9	
1	5	
1	2	
Median score 3	Median score 5	
(a)  Explain why the data in the table is primary data and not secondary data.
(2)
(b)  Explain one strength of primary data.
(3)
(c)  The researcher decided to extend the study by using an inferential test to see if there was a significant difference between the two sets of scores.
Suggest an appropriate inferential test which the researcher could use. Justify your choice.
(4)
(Total 9 marks)
Q8.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
In a study of gender schema a researcher studied the way in which boys and girls understood gender. An overall understanding score was calculated on the basis of answers to a questionnaire. A high score indicated a very fixed understanding and a low score indicated a flexible understanding.
The scores are shown in the table below.	
 
Girls	Boys	
4	5	
6	6	
2	6	
2	7	
3	2	
3	4	
3	5	
8	9	
1	5	
1	2	
Median score 3	Median score 5	
(a)  Explain why the data in the table is primary data and not secondary data.
(2)
(b)  Explain one strength of primary data.
(3)
(c)  The researcher decided to extend the study by using an inferential test to see if there was a significant difference between the two sets of scores.
Suggest an appropriate inferential test which the researcher could use. Justify your choice.
(4)
(Total 9 marks)
Q9.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
In a study of social cognition a researcher studied perspective-taking in children aged 5 years and 9 years. An overall perspective-taking score was calculated on the basis of answers to a questionnaire. A high score indicated good perspective taking and a low score indicated poor perspective-taking.
The scores are shown in the table below.	
 
5-year-olds	9-year-olds	
4	5	
6	6	
2	6	
2	7	
3	2	
3	4	
3	5	
8	9	
1	5	
1	2	
Median score 3	Median score 5	
(a)  Explain why the data in the table is primary data and not secondary data.
(2)
(b)  Explain one strength of primary data.
(3)
(c)  The researcher decided to extend the study by using an inferential test to see if there was a significant difference between the two sets of scores.
Suggest an appropriate inferential test which the researcher could use. Justify your choice.
(4)
(Total 9 marks)
Q10.
A researcher investigated obedience. The table shows the percentages of people who obeyed a simple request from a confederate who was either smartly dressed or casually dressed.
 
Request	Smartly dressed
confederate	Casually dressed
confederate	
Pick up some litter	80%	61%	
Post a letter lying near a post box	61%	40%	
Carry a heavy box up some stairs	30%	30%	
What do these results suggest about obedience?
(Total 4 marks)
Q11.
In an observational study, 100 cars were fitted with video cameras to record the driver’s behaviour. Two psychologists used content analysis to analyse the data from the films. They found that 75% of accidents involved a lack of attention by the driver. The most common distractions were using a hands-free phone or talking to a passenger. Other distractions included looking at the scenery, smoking, eating, personal grooming and trying to reach something within the car.
(a)     What is content analysis?
(2)
(b)     Explain how the psychologists might have carried out content analysis to analyse the film clips of driver behaviour.
(4)
(c)     Explain how the two psychologists might have assessed the reliability of their content analysis.
The psychologists then designed an experiment to test the effects of using a hands-free phone on drivers’ attention. They recruited a sample of 30 experienced police drivers and asked them to take part in two computer-simulated driving tests. Both tests involved watching a three-minute film of a road. Participants were instructed to click the mouse as quickly as possible, when a potential hazard (such as a car pulling out ahead) was spotted.
Each participant completed two computer-simulated driving tests:
•        Test A, whilst chatting with one of the psychologists on a hands-free phone
•        Test B, in silence, with no distractions.
The order in which they completed the computer tests was counterbalanced.
(3)
(d)     Explain why the psychologists chose to use a repeated measures design in this experiment.
(3)
(e)     Identify one possible extraneous variable in this experiment. Explain how this variable may have influenced the results of this experiment.
(3)
(f)    Explain one or more ethical issues that the psychologists should have considered in this experiment.
(4)
(g)    Write a set of standardised instructions that would be suitable to read out to participants, before they carry out Test A, chatting on a hands-free phone.
The computer simulator measured two aspects of driver behaviour:
•        the number of hazards detected by each driver
•        the time taken to respond to each hazard, in seconds.
The mean scores for each of these measures is shown in the table below.
Table to show the mean number of hazards detected and mean reaction times in seconds for Test A and Test B
 
Mean scores	Test A: with hands-free phone	Test B: in silence	
Number of hazards detected	26.0	23.0	
Reaction time in seconds	0.45 	0.27	
The psychologists then used an inferential statistical test to assess whether there was a difference in the two conditions.
(5)
(h)     Identify an appropriate statistical test to analyse the difference in the number of hazards detected in the two conditions of this experiment. Explain why this test of difference would be appropriate.
They found no significant difference in the number of hazards detected (p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in reaction times (p . 0.01).
(3)
(i)     Explain why the psychologists did not think that they had made a Type 1 error in relation to the difference in reaction times.
(2)
(j)     Replication is one feature of the scientific method. The psychologists decided to replicate this experiment using a larger sample of 250 inexperienced drivers.
Explain why replication of this study would be useful.
(3)
(Total 32 marks)
Q12.
Two groups of patients took part in a trial to compare the effectiveness of two different drug therapies. One of the groups was given Drug A and the other group was given Drug B. All patients completed a rating scale at the start of a ten-week course of treatment and again at the end of the course. This scale measured the severity of symptoms.
The Drug A group had an average score of 9 before the therapy and an average score of 4 at the end of the course.
The Drug B group had an average score of 7 before the therapy and an average score of 5 at the end of the course.
Sketch and label a bar chart to illustrate the data.
     
(Total 4 marks)
Q13.
A psychologist wanted to see whether or not there is a difference in the expectations that men and women have of their own numeracy skills. She obtained a sample of 15 men and 15 women from a factory. She conducted her study in two parts.
In the first part of the study, the psychologist said to each participant: “I want you to estimate how many marks you think you will get on a maths test that is suitable for 14-year-old children. If the test has a maximum score of 50, what mark do you think you will get?”
The psychologist recorded the estimate given by each participant and calculated the median estimates for the men and for the women.
The results of the study are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Median estimated maths test scores for men and women
 
 	Median estimated maths test score	
Men	31	
Women	19	
(a)     Explain how a median score is calculated.
(1)
(b)     Identify the dependent variable in this study.
(1)
(c)     Write a suitable hypothesis for this study.
(2)
(d)     Identify and explain the experimental design used in this study.
(2)
(e)     Explain how the psychologist could have obtained a random sample of 15 men and a random sample of 15 women for this study.
(3)
(f)      What conclusion could the psychologist draw from the median estimated scores in Table 1? Justify your answer.
(2)
In the second part of the study, each participant took a 30-minute maths test suitable for 14-year-old children. The test took place under examination conditions. The psychologist marked the test. The maximum mark was 50.
The results of the maths test are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Median maths test scores for men and women
 
 	Median maths test score	
Men	25	
Women	25	
(g)     Taking the results from both parts of the study (Table 1 and Table 2), what can the psychologist now conclude?
(3)
(h)     After both parts of the study had been completed, the psychologist needed to debrief the participants.
Write a debrief that the psychologist could read out to the participants.
(4)
(i)      This psychologist did not conduct a pilot study. Explain one reason why psychologists sometimes conduct pilot studies.
(2)
(Total 20 marks)
Q14.
(a)     One technique used in cognitive interviews is ‘report everything’. When using this technique, the police officer in this investigation read the following instructions to the participants:
“Please tell me everything you can remember about what you saw in the film. Do not leave anything out, even the small details you think may be unimportant.”
Identify one other technique which could have been used by the police officer in this cognitive interview. Write down the instructions that he could have read out to the participants.
(3)
(b)     The psychologist also recorded the number of correct items recalled and the number of incorrect items recalled in each type of interview. The following results were obtained:
 
 	Cognitive Interview	Standard Interview	
Mean number of correct 
items recalled	45	32	
Mean number of incorrect 
items recalled	8	8	
From these results, what might the psychologist conclude about the effectiveness of cognitive interviews?
(2)
(Total 5 marks)
Q15.
Research has shown that there is a relationship between stress and illness.
The figure below shows the number of days off work through illness in a year and scores on a stress questionnaire, where a high score indicates more stress.
Relationship between days off work in a year
  through illness and stress scores
    
                                      Number of days off work in a year through illness
What does the figure above tell you about the relationship between stress and illness?
(Total 2 marks)
Q16.
Some studies have suggested that there may be a relationship between intelligence and happiness. To investigate this claim, a psychologist used a standardised test to measure intelligence in a sample of 30 children aged 11 years, who were chosen from a local secondary school. He also asked the children to complete a self-report questionnaire designed to measure happiness. The score from the intelligence test was correlated with the score from the happiness questionnaire. The psychologist used a Spearman’s rho test to analyse the data. He found that the correlation between intelligence and happiness at age 11 was +0.42.
(a)     Write an operationalised non-directional hypothesis for this study.
(2)
(b)     Identify an alternative method which could have been used to collect data about happiness in this study. Explain why this method might be better than using a questionnaire.
(4)
(c)     A Spearman’s rho test was used to analyse the data. Give two reasons why this test was used.
(2)
Extract from table of critical values from Spearman’s rho(rs) test
N (number of participants)	Level of significance for a two-tailed test	
 	0.10	0.05	
 	Level of significance for a one-tailed test	
 	0.05	0.025	
29	0.312	0.368	
30	0.306	0.362	
31	0.301	0.356	
Calculated rs must equal or exceed the table (critical) value for significance at the level shown.
(d)     The psychologist used a non-directional hypothesis. Using the table above, state whether or not the correlation between intelligence and happiness at age 11 (+0.42) was significant. Explain your answer.
(3)
(e)     Five years later, the same young people were asked to complete the intelligence test and the happiness questionnaire for a second time. This time the correlation was –0.29.
With reference to both correlation scores, outline what these findings seem to show about the link between intelligence and happiness.
(4)
(Total 15 marks)
Q17.
The following results are percentages of participants who gave the maximum shock, in variations of Milgram’s experiment into obedience to authority.
  Condition	% Participants obeying	
Experimenter and two obedient confederates are in the
same room as the participant.	92.5%	
Experimenter is in the same room as the participant.	65%	
Experimenter is in a different room from the participant.	20.5%	
Experimenter and two disobedient confederates are in
the same room as the participant.	10%	
What do these results suggest about the power of the confederates in variations of Milgram’s study?
(Total 4 marks)
Q18.
A maths teacher wondered whether there was a relationship between mathematical ability and musical ability. She decided to test this out on the GCSE students in the school. From 210 students, she randomly selected 10 and gave each of them two tests. She used part of a GCSE exam paper to test their mathematical ability. The higher the mark, the better the mathematical ability. She could not find a musical ability test so she devised her own. She asked each student to sing a song of their choice. She then rated their performance on a scale of 1–10, where 1 is completely tuneless and 10 is in perfect tune.
(a)     Suggest a suitable non-directional hypothesis for this study.
(3)
(b)     Why might the measure of musical ability used by the teacher lack validity?
(3)
(c)     Explain how the teacher could have checked the reliability of the
mathematical ability test.
(3)
(d)     Explain why the teacher chose to use a random sample in this study.
The results of the study are given in the table below.
Mathematical ability test scores and musical ability ratings for 10 students
 
Student	Mathematical ability
test score	Musical ability
rating	
1	10	10	
2	  2	  9	
3	  9	  3	
4	  6	  6	
5	  3	  9	
6	10	  2	
7	  2	  1	
8	  1	  8	
9	  8	  4	
10	  4	  7	
(2)
(e)     In your answer book, sketch a graph to show the data in the table above.
Give the graph an appropriate title and label the axes.
(3)
(f)      Discuss what the data in the table above and the graph that you have
sketched seem to show about the relationship between mathematical ability
and musical ability.
(3)
(g)     The teacher noticed that most of the students who were rated highly on
musical ability were left-handed. The teacher is aware that her previous
definition of musical ability lacked validity.
Design a study to test whether there is a difference in the musical ability of
left-handed students and right-handed students. You have access to a sixth
form of 200 students.
You should:
•        identify the design that you would use
•        explain an appropriate sampling method and justify your choice
•        describe the procedure that you would use, including details of how you
would assess musical ability
•        write a suitable debrief for these participants.
(10)
(h)     In your answer book, draw a table to show how you would record your results.
Identify an appropriate statistical test to analyse the data that you would collect.
Justify your choice.
(3)
(Total 30 marks)
Q19.
When investigating the conditioning of behaviour, Behaviourists such as Pavlov and Skinner collected quantitative data.
Outline what is meant by quantitative data. Give an example of quantitative data collected by a psychologist who has studied conditioning.
(Total 2 marks)
Q20.
Give two reasons why Behaviourists do not collect qualitative data in their investigations.
(Total 2 marks)
Q21.
A study was carried out to test the effectiveness of a new anger management programme. The programme had been designed by a team of psychologists working in a young offenders’ institution.
Fifteen male offenders aged 17– 21 years took part in the programme. An anger score for each offender was obtained before the start of the programme. This score was based on a questionnaire designed by the psychologists. The questionnaire had 10 items. The maximum score was 50; the higher the score, the greater the level of anger.
The month-long programme of anger management involved 8 two-hour sessions.
Throughout the programme, the offenders were told to keep a diary of situations that made them angry and to record their anger in these situations. After the programme had ended, they were told to continue to keep their diary.
Two weeks later, after the programme had ended, a second anger score was obtained for each offender. The same questionnaire was used.
The data obtained are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Median anger scores and the ranges before and after the programme
 
 	Before	After	
Median	35	24	
Range	15	17	
(a)     Explain why measures of dispersion are often used in addition to measures of central tendency to summarise data. Refer to the results of this study in your answer.
(2)
(b)     A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to test for a significant difference between the anger scores at the start of the programme and after the programme had ended.
The calculated value of T was found to be 22.
Table 2: Critical values of T
 
Level of significance for two-tailed test	0.1	0.05	0.02	
Critical value of T (when N = 15)	30	25	19	
T must be equal to or less than the critical value to be significant.
Using Table 2 above, explain whether or not the result is significant.
(2)
(c)     Explain why the psychologists decided to use a Wilcoxon signed ranks test to analyse the data.
(3)
(d)     Explain two possible reasons for asking each offender to keep a diary.
(4)
(e)     An independent researcher reviewed the design of the study and noted that there was no control group.
Explain how having a control group could have improved this study.
(3)
(f)     The independent researcher was also concerned that the psychologists had not checked the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used to measure the level of anger.
Outline how the psychologists could check the reliability and the validity of the questionnaire.
(5)
(Total 19 marks)
Q22.
A researcher investigated the effect of age of starting day care on levels of aggression. Four-year-old children attending a day nursery were used. Each child was assessed by the researcher and given an aggression score. A high score indicated a high level of aggression.
A low score indicated a low level of aggression. The maximum score was 50.
 
 	Mean aggression scores for four-year-old children who had started
day care before the age of two or after the age of two	
 
 	Started day care
before the age of two	Started day care
after the age of two	
Mean score	25	23	
(a)     Identify the operationalised independent variable and the operationalised dependent variable in this study.
(4)
(b)     What do the mean scores in the table above suggest about the effect of age
at which children started day care on children’s aggression?
(2)
(c)     Name one measure of dispersion that the researcher could have used to
describe the data.
(1)
(d)     Draw an appropriate bar chart to display the data presented in the table above.
Correctly label your bar chart.
 
(3)
(e)     State an appropriate directional hypothesis for this study.
(2)
(Total 12 marks)
Q23.
The following scattergram shows the relationship between the number of weeks of treatment with ECT and the score on the Self-Rating Depression Scale (on this scale, a high score indicates depression).
 
Outline what the scattergram seems to show.
(Total 4 marks)
Q24.
A psychologist wanted to investigate whether or not the presence of an audience had an effect on the performance of a task.
The task was to shoot netballs through a hoop. Each participant took 20 shots.
The experiment took place in a school sports hall.
The psychologist obtained the sample of participants from a local secondary school for girls. She drew the names of 40 participants at random from a list of girls who all played netball regularly. The first 20 participants drawn took part in the experimental condition and the next 20 participants took part in the control condition.
In the experimental condition, each participant took 20 shots. In this condition, 50 pupils from the school acted as an audience watching the performance.
In the control condition, the other 20 participants performed the same task, but this time without the audience watching.
The psychologist observed each girl’s performance and recorded the number of netballs successfully shot through the hoop.
(a)     State an appropriate hypothesis for this study.
(2)
The results of the study are shown in the table below.
The mean number of netballs successfully shot through the hoop in the presence and absence of an audience.
 
 	Mean number of netballs successfully shot
through the hoop	
Presence of an audience	15	
Absence of an audience	9	
(b)     What might the psychologist conclude from the data in the table above? Justify your answer.
(2)
(c)     Sketch an appropriate graphical display of the data shown in Table.
 
(3)
(d)     The psychologist used random sampling to select the participants in this study.
Explain one strength of using a random sample.
(2)
(e)     (i)      The psychologist used an independent groups design in this study.
Briefly explain one limitation of using an independent groups design in this study.
(2)
(ii)     Explain how the limitation that you have identified in your answer to (e) (i) might have been overcome.
(2)
(f)      (i)      What is meant by an extraneous variable?
(1)
(ii)     Explain why it is important to control extraneous variables in experimental research.
(2)
(g)     Write a short set of instructions that the psychologist could have read to the participants in the experimental condition.
(4)
(Total 20 marks)
Q25.
A psychologist carried out an experiment using an independent groups design. The psychologist wished to investigate the effectiveness of a strategy for memory improvement. In one condition, participants were taught a memory improvement strategy. In the other condition, participants were not taught this memory improvement strategy. All participants were asked to memorise 10 pictures of familiar objects. For example, the first was a doll, the second was an apple. All participants were then given 50 pictures each, and asked to select the original 10.
The psychologist did a pilot study before carrying out the experiment. The results of the experiment are shown in the table below.
(a)     Write a directional hypothesis for this experiment.
(2)
(b)     Explain what is meant by an independent groups design.
(1)
(c)     Explain one strength and one limitation of using an independent groups design.
(4)
(d)     Explain why the psychologist did a pilot study.
(3)
The mean number of pictures correctly identified and standard
deviations for participants with the memory improvement strategy
and without the memory improvement strategy
 
 	With memory
improvement strategy	Without memory improvement strategy	
Mean	8	7	
Standard Deviation	2.80	0.29	
(e)     What do the standard deviations in the table above tell us about the performance
of the two groups?
(2)
(Total 12 marks)
Q26.
Some research has suggested that there is a relationship between the time children spend in day care and their aggressive behaviour. Researchers selected a group of school children who had been in day care. They asked the children’s mothers to estimate how many hours a week their children had spent in day care. They measured the same children’s aggression.
Relationship between average hours spent in a day care and aggression
 
(a)     How many children are represented in this scattergram?
(1)
(b)     Suggest one way in which the children’s aggression could be measured.
(2)
(c)     In the media, it was claimed that the results showed spending time in day care
caused the children to become aggressive.
Explain why this claim may be untrue.
(3)
(Total 6 marks)
Q27.
Two different drug therapies were tested on a group of patients. All the patients suffered with the same anxiety disorder. Half the patients were given Therapy A and the other half were given Therapy B. Improvement was assessed on a scale from 0-25, where 0 = no improvement.
The table below shows the improvement made between the start and the end of the treatment.
       Average and range of improvement scores
 
 	Average	Range	
Therapy A	6.5	2 – 19	
Therapy B	6	4 – 9	
Explain what these findings suggest about the different therapies?
(Total 4 marks)
Q28.
Psychological research suggests an association between birth order and certain abilities. For example, first-born children are often logical in their thinking whereas later-born children tend to be more creative. A psychologist wonders whether this might mean that birth order is associated with different career choices. She decides to investigate and asks 50 artists and 65 lawyers whether they were the first-born child in the family or not.
(a)     Write a non-directional hypothesis for this study.
(2)
(b)     Identify an appropriate sampling method for this study and explain how the psychologist might have obtained such a sample
The psychologist found the following results:
•        20 of the 50 artists were first-born children
•        35 of the 65 lawyers were first-born children.
She analysed her data using a statistical test and calculated a value of  = 2.27. She then looked at the relevant table to see whether this value was statistically significant. An extract from the table is provided below.
Table: Critical values of 
 
Calculated value of must be equal to or exceed the table (critical) values for significance at the level shown
(3)
(c)     Imagine that you are writing the results section of the report on this investigation. Using information from the description of the study above and the relevant information from the statistical table, provide contents suitable for the results section.
You must provide all of the following:
•        an appropriately labelled  contingency table a sketch of an appropriately labelled bar chart
•        identification of the appropriate statistical test with justification for its use
•        identification of an appropriate significance level
•        a statement of the results of the statistical test in relation to the hypothesis.
(12)
(Total 17 marks)
Q29.
Psychologists carried out a laboratory experiment to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive interviews. All participants watched the same film of a robbery. They were randomly allocated to Group One or Group Two. Participants were then asked to recall the robbery. The investigators used a cognitive interview to access recall of participants in Group One and a standard interview to access recall of participants in Group Two.
The results of this experiment are summarised in the Figure below.
Average number of correct and incorrect statements made by participants under two different interview conditions
 
(a)     What experimental design was used in this experiment?
(1)
(b)     Explain one limitation of the design that was used in this experiment.
(2)
(c)     Explain what the results suggest about the effectiveness of the cognitive
interview.
(2)
(d)     Participants in the standard interview were simply asked to describe what
happened in the film.
Suggest one way in which participants in the cognitive interview condition
could have been asked to recall what happened.
(2)
(e)     What is meant by the term investigator effects? Explain possible investigator
effects in this study.
(4)
(Total 11 marks)
Q30.
 A psychologist collected data on the effectiveness of three types of therapies for different types of disorders. The results are displayed in the bar chart below.
Percentage of patients who improved according to type of disorder and type of therapy
 
What conclusions about the effectiveness of different therapies can you draw from the bar chart?
(Total 4 marks)
Q31.
A researcher carried out an experiment to investigate how many numbers could be held in short-term memory. The participants were 15 children and 15 adults. Participants were asked to repeat lists of random numbers, in the correct order, as soon as they were read out by the researcher. For example, when the researcher said, “3, 4, 2, 8” the participant immediately repeated “3, 4, 2, 8”. When the researcher then said,“7, 5, 9, 6, 4” the participant immediately repeated “7, 5, 9, 6, 4”. One number was added to the list each time until participants were unable to recall the list correctly.Each participant’s maximum digit span was recorded.
(a)     Write an appropriate non-directional hypothesis for this experiment.
(2)
(b)     Explain why the researcher used an independent groups design for this
experiment.
(2)
(c)        Frequency distribution of the maximum number of digits
        correctly recalled by children and adults
 
Write the mode for each group in the table below.
 
Age group	Mode	
Children	 	
Adults	 	
(2)
(d)     What does the frequency distribution show about the results?
(3)
(e)     Do the results of this experiment support the findings of other research into
the capacity of short-term memory? Explain your answer.
(2)
(Total 11 marks)
Q32.
Read the text below and answer the questions that follow.
A psychologist is using the observational method to look at verbal aggression in a group of children with behavioural difficulties. Pairs of observers watch a single child in the class for a period of one hour and note the number of verbally aggressive acts within ten-minute time intervals. After seeing the first set of ratings, the psychologist becomes concerned about the quality of inter-rater reliability. The tally chart for the two observers is shown in the table below.
Table: Observation of one child – number of verbally aggressive acts in ten-minute time intervals
 
Time slots	0–10	11–20	21–30	31–40	41–50	51–60	
Observer A	2	5	0	6	4	3	
Observer B	4	3	2	1	6	5	
(a)     Use the data in the Table above to sketch a scattergram. Label the axes and
give the scattergram a title.
(4)
(b)     Using the data in the Table above, explain why the psychologist is concerned
about inter-rater reliability.
(4)
(c)     Identify an appropriate statistical test to check the inter-rater reliability of these
two observers. Explain why this is an appropriate test.
(3)
(d)     If the psychologist does find low reliability, what could she do to improve
inter-rater reliability before proceeding with the observational research?
(4)
(Total 15 marks)
Q33.
One measure of the functioning of the immune system is the level of activity of white blood cells.
What does the graph below tell you about the relationship between stress and the level of activity of white blood cells?
Relationship between stress and the level of activity of white blood cells
 
(Total 2 marks)
Q34.
In an experiment into conformity, an experimenter varied both the number of confederates (stooges) and the ambiguity of the task. The bar chart below shows the findings.
Percentages of conformity for different tasks and size of majority
 
What does the bar chart show about conformity?
(Total 4 marks)
Q35.
A psychologist was interested in testing a new treatment for people with eating disorders. She put up adverts in several London clinics to recruit participants. Thirty people came forward and they were all given a structured interview by a trained therapist. The therapist then calculated a numerical score for each participant as a measure of their current functioning, where 50 indicates excellent, healthy functioning and zero indicates failure to function adequately. The psychologist then randomly allocated half the participants to a treatment group and half to a no-treatment group. After eight weeks, each participant was re-assessed using a structured interview conducted by the same trained therapist, and given a new numerical score. The trained therapist did not know which participants had been in either group.
For each participant, the psychologist calculated an improvement score by subtracting the score at the start of the study from the score after eight weeks. The greater the number, the better the improvement.
 
Median and range of improvement scores for the
treatment group and for the no-treatment group	
 	   Treatment group	 No–treatment group	
Median	10.9	2.7	
Range	2.1	0.8	
(a)     With reference to the data in the table above, outline what the findings of this investigation seem to show about the effectiveness of the treatment.
(2)
(b)     The psychologist used a statistical test to find out whether there was a significant difference in improvement between the ‘treatment’ and ‘no-treatment’ groups. She found a significant difference at the 5% level for a one-tailed test ( p ≤ 0.05).
Identify an appropriate statistical test for analysing the participants’ scores.
Explain why it would be a suitable test to use in this study.
(4)
(c)     What is the likelihood of the psychologist having made a Type 1 error in this study? Explain your answer.
(2)
(d)     The psychologist assumed that improvements in the treatment group were a direct result of the new type of treatment. Suggest two other reasons why people in the treatment group might have improved.
(4)
(e)     The psychologist could have used self-report questionnaires to assess the participants instead of using interviews with the therapist. Explain one advantage and one disadvantage of using self-report questionnaires in this study rather than interviews.
(4)
(f)     The psychologist needed to obtain informed consent from her participants. Write a brief consent form which would be suitable for this study. You should include some details of what participants could expect to happen in the study and how they would be protected.
(5)
(g)     What is meant by reliability? Explain how the reliability of the scores in this study could be checked.
(4)
(h)     The psychologist noticed that female and male participants seemed to have responded rather differently to the treatment.
She decided to test the following hypothesis:
Female patients with an eating disorder will show greater improvement in their symptoms after treatment with the new therapy than male patients.
She used a new set of participants and, this time, used self-report questionnaires instead of interviews with a therapist.
Imagine that you are the psychologist and are writing up the report of the study.
Write an appropriate methods section which includes reasonable detail of design, participants, materials and procedure. Make sure that there is enough detail to allow another researcher to carry out this study in the future.
(10)
(Total 35 marks)

Mark schemes
Q1.
[AO2 = 4]
Content
•        Median is 11 for Group A (9 + 13/2) and 8.5 for Group B (8 + 9/2)
1 mark for each accurately calculated median
Plus
2 further marks for explaining that the median is used because of the outlying/extreme scores (one in each group) which would have distorted the mean.
Also accept answers based on unsafe level of measurement.
Q2.
[AO2 = 4]
Content:
•        Median is 34.5 for Group A (32 + 37/2) and 50.5 for Group B (45 + 56/2)
1 mark for each accurately calculated median
Plus
2 further marks for explaining that the median is used because the level of measurement is not interval – ratings data with units of variable size.
Q3.
[AO2 = 4]
Possible content:
•        Median is 29.5 (29 + 30/2) for Group A and 24.5 (24 + 25/2) for Group B
1 mark for each accurately calculated median
2 further marks for explaining the median is the more appropriate measure because of the outlying extreme scores in each group which could have distorted the mean.
Accept answers based on unsafe level of measurement.
Q4.
(a)  [AO2 = 3]
One mark for knowledge of inter-rater (observer) reliability (this may be named or implicit in the application)
Plus
Up to two marks for applying knowledge of how reliability of the category system could be assessed in this study.
For example:
The consistency between the recordings of two researchers would be assessed by asking each researcher to categorise the essays independently for ‘references to love’. The data would then be compared and if similar then the analysis is reliable.
Credit reference to the fact that the correlation coefficient between the researchers’ data should exceed 0.8.
(b)  [AO2 = 3]
Up to 3 marks for an accurate sketch of a bar chart to represent the data in the table
•   1 mark for an appropriate title
•   1 mark for correctly labelled axes
•   1 mark for accurately plotted bars (4 in total)
 
(c)  [AO2 = 3]
•   1 mark for calculating the total number of references to love overall (16+40 = 56)
•   1 mark for representing the total number of references to love in the care group as a fraction of the total number of references to love overall (16/56)
•   1 mark for dividing both parts of the fraction by the lowest common denominator (16/8 = 2; 56/8 = 7) to produce the correct answer (2/7)
(d)  [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for clear explanation plus coherent elaboration
2 marks for explanation plus some elaboration
1 mark for vague/muddled explanation
Students may make a single, elaborated point or a number of points in less detail.
Possible content
•   The interviewer could have asked follow-up questions to gain greater insight into some of the points raised in the essay
•   The interview would produce more detail/depth of information than the participant would have been able to reveal within the essay
•   Interview data would have provided a further measure of reliability/validity of the original essay content
•   The interviewer may have gained rapport with the participant so they have felt comfortable revealing more personal/sensitive information face-to-face
Accept other valid points.
(e)  [AO1 = 4 AO2 = 2]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
3	5 – 6	Knowledge of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is clear and accurate. There is appropriate use of the data in the table and clear links made to Bowlby’s theory. The answer is clear and coherent. Specialist terminology is used effectively.	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is present though there may be some inaccuracy/lack of clarity. There is some attempt to use the data in Table 1 though the links to Bowlby’s theory may not always be clear. There is some appropriate use of specialist terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Knowledge of Bowlby’s theory is briefly stated with little elaboration. The use of data in Table 1 in the context of Bowlby’s theory may be inappropriate or absent. The answer may include inaccuracies and be poorly organised. Specialist terminology is either absent or inappropriately used.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
Knowledge of Bowlby’s monotropic theory:
•   Unique ‘monotropic’ relationship with mother-figure
•   Notion of critical/sensitive period up to approx. 2 years
•   Importance of internal working model for future relationships
•   Social releasers to facilitate bond
•   Reciprocal process
Accept other valid points.
Possible application:
•   The care group made fewer references to love in their essays/more reference to fear of rejection which suggests their lack of monotropic bond may have affected the quality of their future relationships
•   Failure to form internal working model in the care group
•   Adopted at 5 so missed critical period for formation of bond
Q5.
(a)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – the hypothesis should be directional
Plus
1 mark – because there is past research indicating the likely direction of the effect (or similar)
(b)  [AO1 = 2 AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation of operationalisation
1 mark for a brief or muddled explanation of operationalisation
Content: operationalisation involves clearly specifying/defining observable behaviours that represent the more general construct under investigation/to enable the behaviour under investigation to be measured
Plus
1 mark each for two observable behaviours that could represent ‘riding a bike with care’.
Examples: use of cycle lanes/tracks, passing pedestrians at a distance of at least 1 metre, using bicycle bell.
Credit any relevant observable behaviour.
(c)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for knowledge of the term face validity – where a behaviour appears at first sight (on the face of it) to represent what is being measured
Plus
2 marks for clear and coherent application of the concept of face validity to the context
1 mark for brief or muddled application of the concept of face validity to the context
Application: Having a dog on a lead appears at first glance to be measuring considerate behaviour because if a dog is on a lead it is less able/likely to upset other people by coming close, frightening, chasing, biting, growling etc.
Credit other relevant applications.
(d)  [AO1 = 4]
1 mark for each of two types of validity identified
Plus
1 mark each for a brief outline of each type of validity identified
Content:
•   Concurrent – where performance on one measure correlates highly with performance on another measure of the same variable
•   Ecological – where a measure of a behaviour accurately reflects the way in which the behaviour would occur in normal circumstances
•   Temporal – where findings from research that took place at a certain point in time accurately reflect the way that behaviour would occur at a different point in time
Credit also other types of validity eg criterion, content, construct, population, predictive.
(e)  [AO2 = 1]
1 mark – C Event sampling
(f)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for each of the following:
•   The student pair should discuss and agree beforehand their interpretation of the behavioural categories
•   Each student should then observe the same people/space/target at the same time but record/tally independently
•   Their respective recordings/tallies should be correlated using an appropriate statistical test ascertain the level of agreement
(g)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for the correct ratio: 3:2
Plus
2 marks for full workings:     23 + 12 + 19 = 54 and 10 + 17 + 9 = 36
             54:36 both divisible by 9 (or 18)
             54 ÷ 9 = 6 and 36 ÷ 9 = 4
             6:4 can be simplified to 3:2
1 mark for partial workings eg   first 2 of the above stages
(h)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for each of the following:
•   Data is categorical/nominal/frequency
•   The students are looking for a difference or an association between two variables
•   Design is independent/unrelated or categories are exclusive (observations cannot appear in more than one cell)
(i)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for the correct answer: df = 2
Plus
1 mark for correctly substituting values into the formula as follows:
(2 − 1) x (3 − 1) = 1 x 2 = 2
(j)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for each of the following:
•   Yes, the result is significant
•   Because the calculated value of Chi-square is more than the critical table value at 0.05, either 4.60 or 5.99, depending on whether student uses one or two-tailed values
•   One-tailed is consistent with the hypothesis and Q13, but there is an argument that the Chi-square test should always be two-tailed so either can be credited
•   Where df equals 2
(k)  [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	The paragraph is clear and coherent, showing sound understanding of the concept of levels of significance and effective application to the context. There is effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	The paragraph shows some understanding of the concept of levels of significance and/or some relevant application to the context. The answer lacks clarity and coherence. Terminology is either absent or inappropriately used.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
•   Explanation of levels of significance as an indication of the measure of the influence/effect of chance/random factors on the findings.
•   With the present results there is a 95% confidence in accepting the research hypothesis/confidence that any difference/effect is due to the variables under investigation, in this case the location of the public spaces.
•   There is a 5% possibility that the same frequencies would occur if there was no real difference between the two towns.
•   The calculated value in this case well exceeds the critical value at 0.05 but does not meet the more stringent level of significance of 0.01.
•   Possibility of type one error.
Credit other relevant material.
(l)  [AO3 = 3]
1 mark for explaining that content analysis is suitable because the students are analysing recordings which are a form of media.
Plus
2 marks for a clear, coherent account of how the content could be analysed
1 mark for a brief or muddled account of how the content could be analysed
Content:
Students could identify specific ideas/concepts that occur in the recordings
They could then set up a system of categories and tally the ideas/concepts
(m)  [AO3 = 1]
1 mark for any relevant inconsiderate behaviour eg leaving rubbish, leaving dirty mugs/plates, playing music loudly, throwing books, shouting
Q6.
[AO2 = 6 AO3 = 6]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
4	10 – 12	All three elements are present. Suggestions are generally well detailed, practical and justified showing sound understanding of experimental design and data analysis. There is sufficient information for the study to be implemented. The answer is clear and coherent. Specialist terminology is used effectively. Minor detail and/or justification is sometimes lacking.	
3	7 – 9	All three elements are present. Suggestions are mostly sensible and practical showing some understanding of experimental design and data analysis. There is some appropriate justification. Implementation of some aspects is possible but detail is lacking. The answer is mostly clear and organised. Specialist terminology is mostly used effectively.	
2	4 – 6	At least two elements are present. Some suggestions are appropriate but others are impractical or inadequately explained. Justification is often incomplete or inappropriate. Implementation would be difficult. The answer lacks clarity, accuracy and organisation in places.	
1	1 – 3	At least one element is present but knowledge is very limited. Justification is either absent or inappropriate. Implementation would not be possible. The answer as a whole lack clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Three elements to be credited:
Design
•   The experimental design to be used (repeated/independent/matched).
•   IV and DV – note the DV must be suitable for ordinal level analysis
•   Any relevant aspect of control eg duration of study, control of relevant environmental variables eg office heating, noise pollution – note this need not be exhaustive
Materials/Apparatus
•   The self-devised instrument for measuring mood should be one that yields ordinal level data
•   A rating scale is the most suitable measure eg ratings from 1–10 where 1 = very unhappy and 10 = very happy. Statement(s) from the rating scale should be outlined
•   Alternatively students could describe a questionnaire and give examples of suitable items
(Note – although essential to the study plants need not be described)
Data analysis
•   Descriptive statistics should include a measure of central tendency and dispersion (given the requirement for an ordinal level measure the most appropriate here would be the median and range but can award some credit for other measure of central tendency and dispersion)
•   Suitable inferential analysis would be a test for differences between two conditions suitable for data at the ordinal level (Mann Whitney or Wilcoxon). Whichever test is chosen it should be consistent with the proposed experimental design.
(Note - descriptive statistics might also include appropriate graph/bar chart but this is not essential)
Q7.
(a)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – because it is collected from participants directly/first hand
Plus
1 mark – rather than gathered from reports of previous research
(b)  [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for clear statement of a strength coherent elaboration
2 marks for statement of a strength some elaboration
1 mark for vague/muddled strength
0 marks for no relevant material
Possible strengths
•   Data gathered is more likely to be focused on the purpose of the research
•   Less peripheral/redundant information
•   Control issues – first hand data can be controlled whereas secondary data may have been gathered under differing conditions
Credit other relevant strengths.
(c)  [AO3 = 4]
1 mark Mann Whitney test
Plus
3 marks for justification – 1 mark for each of the following:
•   Testing for a difference
•   Independent design – different participants in each condition
•   Data assumed to be ordinal ie not fixed intervals (also credit data is assumed to be non-parametric)
Q8.
(a)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – because it is collected from participants directly/first-hand
Plus
1 mark – rather than gathered from reports of previous research
(b)  [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for clear statement of a strength plus coherent elaboration
2 marks for statement of a strength plus some elaboration
1 mark for vague/muddled strength
0 marks for no relevant material
Possible strengths
•   Data gathered is more likely to be focused on the purpose of the research
•   Less peripheral/redundant information
•   Control issues – first-hand data can be controlled whereas secondary data may have been gathered under differing conditions
(c)  [AO3 = 4]
1 mark Mann Whitney test
Plus
3 marks for justification – 1 mark for each of the following:
•   Testing for a difference
•   Independent design – different participants in each condition
•   Data assumed to be ordinal ie not fixed intervals (also credit data is assumed to be non-parametric)
Q9.
(a)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – because it is collected from participants directly/first-hand
Plus
1 mark – rather than gathered from reports of previous research
(b)  [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for clear statement of a strength coherent elaboration
2 marks for statement of a strength plus some elaboration
1 mark for vague/muddled strength
0 marks for no relevant material
Possible strengths:
•   Data gathered is more likely to be focused on the purpose of the research
•   Less peripheral/redundant information
•   Control issues – first hand data can be controlled whereas secondary data may have been gathered under differing conditions
Credit other relevant strengths.
(c)  [AO3 = 4]
1 mark Mann Whitney test
Plus
3 marks for justification – 1 mark for each of the following:
•   Testing for a difference
•   Independent design – different participants in each condition
•   Data assumed to be ordinal ie not fixed intervals (also credit data is assumed to be non-parametric)
Q10.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
AO3 = 4
•        A smartly dressed confederate elicits more obedience (1 mark) than a casually-dressed confederate (second mark)
•        The type of task (request) also influences rate of obedience (1 mark)
•        If told to do something that requires effort (e.g. heavy task) obedience levels are not affected by what the person is wearing (2 marks)
 
AO3    Interpretation of data	
4 marks Effective interpretation of data
Effective interpretation that demonstrates sound knowledge of what the data shows, with reference to both what the confederate is wearing and type of task.	
3 marks Reasonable interpretation of data
Reasonable interpretation of what the data shows, with reference to what the confederate is wearing and the type of task, but one in more detail.	
2 marks Basic interpretation of data
Basic interpretation of what the data shows; in terms of, for example “more” or “less”.	
1 mark Rudimentary interpretation of data
Rudimentary, muddled interpretation of the data, demonstrating very limited knowledge.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
Q11.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
(a)     AO1 = 2
Content analysis is a technique for analysing qualitative data of various kinds. Data can be placed into categories and counted (quantitative) or can be analysed in themes (qualitative).
Award 1 mark for a brief statement and a further mark for elaboration.
(b)     AO3 = 4
•        The psychologist could have begun by watching some of the film clips of driver behaviour.
•        This would enable the psychologist to identify potential categories which emerged from the data of the different types of distractions seen in the film.
•        Such categories / themes might include: passenger distractions, gadget distractions, etc.
•        The psychologists would then have watched the films again and counted the number of examples which fell into each category to provide quantitative data.
Credit variations in so far as they explain the process.
Note: maximum 1 mark if no engagement with the stem.
 
AO3 Mark bands	
4 marks Effective
Effective explanation of the processes involved in content analysis referring to some or all of the above points.	
2 – 3 marks Reasonable
Reasonable accurate coverage of the processes involved.	
1 mark Basic
Basic identification of the processes involved in content analysis (‘watching the films and counting’).	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
(c)     AO3 = 3
1 mark for identification of an appropriate way of assessing reliability in this investigation. By far the most likely answers here are inter-rater reliability or test-retest reliability.
2 marks for some explanation / elaboration: ‘the two psychologists could carry out content analysis of the films separately and compare their answers’ or ‘they could re-code the films at a later date and compare the two sets of data’.
3 marks for an accurate and clear explanation which refers to deriving the categories and checking the data. ‘The two psychologists could watch the films separately and devise a set of categories. They could compare these and use categories they both agreed on. They could carry out content analysis of the films separately and compare their answers looking for agreement’.
(d)     AO3 = 3
Candidates can cover one reason explained in detail here or several reasons in less detail.
A repeated measures design was chosen in this experiment:
•        to remove the effects of individual differences in reaction times which would occur if an independent groups design was used
•        to avoid the potential difficulties involved in matching participants
•        to reduce the number of participants required for the experiment.
(e)     AO3 = 3
This is a repeated measures design and is counter-balanced hence points about order effects and individual differences will not gain credit.
There are a range of potential extraneous variables here including:
•        the nature and content of the conversation with the psychologist on the hands-free phone
•        interaction between the sex of the psychologist and sex of participant which could influence the type of conversation
•        the number of hazards in the computer-based test, hence difficulty of the tests
•        the presence of the hands-free headset could have produced distraction.
Award 1 mark for basic identification of a confounding variable and a further 2 marks for elaboration of how this could have affected the dependent variable.
Example: The chat with the psychologist was not controlled (1 mark) so the difficulty or number of questions could have varied (2 marks). This would influence the DV as more or less attention would be required (3 marks).
(f)     AO3 = 4
There are several potential ethical issues here. Candidates can focus on one in detail or several in less detail.
•        Protection of participants from harm whilst studying the effects of a hands-free phone on driving. Two key issues here are the use of a computer-based test with no risk attached and of an experienced sample of police drivers.
•        Informed consent: Participants should be given full information about the nature of both tasks before deciding whether or not to participate.
•        Debriefing: A full debriefing should take place at the end of the experiment. This should provide feedback on performance and allow participants to ask questions if they wish to.
•        Freedom to withdraw: Participants should be made aware of their freedom to withdraw before and during the experiment. They should be made aware of their right to withdraw their data after the experiment.
•        Confidentiality: Individuals should not be identified, but should retain anonymity (use of numbers or initials instead of names).
Lists of ethical issues with no elaboration 1 mark.
 
AO3 Mark bands	
4 marks Sound
An appropriate ethical issue is identified and explained in detail. Material is 
accurate – or several issues are identified and discussed accurately in less detail.	
2 – 3 marks Reasonable
One or more appropriate ethical issues are identified and discussed. The answer is generally accurate.	
1 mark Basic
Basic identification of an ethical issue (e.g. ‘right to withdraw’) or very brief answers which lack detail.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
(g)     AO3 = 5
The standardised instructions should include the following information:
a.       You will take part in a simulated driving test which will last for three minutes.
b.       Your task will be to identify potential hazards on the road ahead.
c.       When you see a hazard, you should press the mouse button as quickly as possible.
d.       Whilst you are doing the test, I will chat to you on a mobile phone and I would like you to reply using the hands-free mobile phone headset.
e.       Do you have any questions?
For full marks, the instructions should adopt an appropriate formal tone. Instructions which are not suitable to be read out should be awarded a maximum mark of 2.
 
AO3 Marks bands     Standardised instructions	
5 marks Effective
The standardised instructions provide accurate detail of the procedure in a clear and concise form and participants’ understanding is checked.	
4 – 3 marks Reasonable
The standardised instructions provide sufficient detail of the procedure in a reasonably clear form.	
2 marks Basic
The standardised instructions provide some details of the procedure though these may not be clear.	
1 mark Rudimentary
The standardised instructions provide few details of the procedure and may be muddled and or inaccurate. Omissions in the instructions compromise the procedure.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material is presented.	
(h)     AO3 = 3
Students are required to identify an appropriate test and are asked to justify their choice.
Award 1 mark for identification of the Wilcoxon (signed ranks) test. Candidates could receive credit for Sign test or related t test. Note that reasons / justification must be correct for the test supplied.
If an incorrect test is identified no marks can be awarded.
Award 1 mark for basic statement of a reason, and a further mark for elaboration, within the context of the experiment or a further reason.
e.g. for Wilcoxon test:
•        A repeated measures design was used (1 mark) as drivers take part in both the hands-free phone and non-phone (silent) conditions (1 mark).
•        A repeated measures design was used (1 mark) and the data can be treated as ordinal (1 mark).
Test of difference cannot gain credit.
(i)     AO3 = 2
Students are told that the difference in reaction times was significant at the p ≤ 0.01 level.
Award 1 mark for a basic understanding of this (‘the result is highly significant’) and a further mark for elaboration e.g. identifying that the probability of a Type 1 error here is less than 1 / 100.
(j)     AO3 = 3
Replication is an important tool in the scientific method. It allows scientists to check findings and ensure that they are robust. In this study, replication is important, as the original sample is small (30 people) and specific (experienced police drivers). For this reason, replication on a larger sample will be used to check if findings apply outside this specific group.
Award 1 mark for a general answer on the importance of replication to check findings.
Q12.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
AO3 = 4
 
1 mark for correctly labelled x-axis: either with over-arching label, e.g. Type of Drug, or by clearly labelling the 2 conditions e.g. Start and End of course.
1 mark for correctly labelled y-axis: average score on (rating) scale.
Up to 2 marks for clearly sketching a bar chart. For full marks, there needs to be an appropriate use of graph paper and bars labelled correctly.
Q13.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
(a)     [AO3 = 1]
A median score is calculated by putting all the scores in order from lowest to highest (or vice versa) and finding the middle score in the set.

Credit explanations that refer to sets with even numbers of values, ie by finding the numerical mid-point between the two middle scores.
(b)     [AO3 = 1]
One mark for identification of the dependent variable:

The estimate of how many marks would be scored on the maths test.

Accept alternative wording.
(c)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, testable statement containing both conditions of the IV and an operationalised DV.

There is a difference in the estimates men will give of their scores on a maths test and the estimates women will give of their scores on a maths test. (Accept a null version)

Men will give higher (or lower) estimates of their scores on a maths test than the estimates women will give of their scores on a maths test.

For 1 mark – a statement with both conditions of the IV and a DV which may not be operational or testable.

No marks for expressions of aim / questions / correlational hypotheses or statements with only one condition.
(d)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for identification of the experimental design as independent groups / measures / samples. No credit if incorrect design is chosen.

One mark for an explanation of this design. 
The participants in the male group are different people from those in the female group or reference to only participating in one condition.
(e)     [AO3 = 3]
Up to 3 marks for a clear explanation of the procedure for obtaining a random sample in this study:
•        put all the names / numbers of the men (from the factory) in a hat / computer (1)
•        draw out 15 names for the sample or get computer to randomly generate 15 numbers (1).
•        repeat for all the women (of the factory) (1) or vice versa.
Accept other ways that would clearly generate a random sample.
(f)      [AO3 = 2]
Up to 2 marks for a suitable conclusion drawn from the data in Table 2.

One mark for the conclusion: 
There is a difference in the expectations men and women have of their own numeracy skills. 
Accept a directional statement such as: 
Men think they are likely to achieve better scores on a maths test than women think they will achieve.

One mark for the justification: 
The median estimate for men was much higher than that for the women.
(g)     [AO3 = 3]
Up to 3 marks for what comparison of the estimated and actual maths scores of the men and women indicates.

Men overestimated their numeracy skills / numerical ability / score they would get (or similar) (1 mark)

Women underestimated their numeracy skills / numerical ability / score they would get (or similar) (1 mark)

Overall conclusions:
•        People / Men / Women are not very good at estimating our ability
•        Expectations were wrong
•        (Although estimates are different) ability was the same
•        Men are over confident re ability
•        Women under confident re ability
(1 mark for any of these)
(h)     [AO3 = 4]
 
Information must be written in verbatim form for more than 1 mark.	
Essential points	Purpose / aim of the study 
Ethical point	
Optional points	Background information / Elaboration of the aim and conditions 
Any questions? 
Thanking for participation 
Interest in the results?	
 
4 marks	Verbatim Both essential and at least one optional point are addressed clearly such that an understanding of the study is achieved. Information should be clear, relevant, sensible and logically structured.	
3 marks	Verbatim Both essential points are addressed such that there is reasonable understanding of the study. There may be deficiencies in clarity, some irrelevance, illogical sequencing or inappropriate content.	
2 marks	Verbatim Any 2 points are addressed. There may be omissions / irrelevances / muddle such that understanding of the study might be limited.	
1 mark	There must be at least one relevant point. Information may be unclear / inappropriate / irrelevant such that understanding of the study would be very limited or most points addressed but not in verbatim form.	
0 marks	No relevant information. Understanding of the study would not be possible.	
(i)      [AO3 = 2]
One mark for a valid reason and a further mark for elaboration of the reason given.

Reason: to identify any possible flaws in (the design of) the study (1 mark). 
Elaboration: to provide an opportunity to improve the study / or so that the researcher does not waste time collecting data that will have to be discarded (1 mark).

Accept any other valid answer.
Q14.
(a)     AO2 = 3
The answer must clearly relate to one or more of the main techniques used in a cognitive interview (other than report everything):-
Context reinstatement
Recall from a changed perspective
Recall in reverse order
Some of the main additional features of the enhanced cognitive interview could be relevant, as long as it could be explained to the participant: – eg Encourage to relax
1 mark for identification of a relevant cognitive technique.
1 mark for very brief statement eg “tell me what you saw in reverse order”.
Second mark for appropriate elaboration eg “Tell me what you saw on the film in a different order to how it actually happened.” If instructions are not suitable to be read out maximum 1 mark for this part.
For 3 marks technique and instructions must match.
(b)     AO3 = 2
The researcher might conclude that the cognitive interview was effective because more correct items were recalled, but it did not affect the number of incorrect items recalled.
0 mark - the cognitive interview was effective with no explanation.
1 mark - it was effective because there were more correct items recalled or it was not effective because the number of incorrect items stayed the same.
2 marks - it was effective because there were more correct items recalled and the number of incorrect items stayed the same / didn’t increase.
1 mark for stating there were more correct items recalled with the cognitive interview than with the standard interview and the number of incorrect items recalled was the same. (There is no reference to effectiveness).
Q15.
AO3 = 2
The graph indicates a fairly strong, positive correlation between scores on a stress questionnaire and days off through illness. The following can all receive a mark: 
direction, strength and a description of their relationship. Credit can also be given for mentioning the flattening of the graph at higher stress levels.
Q16.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
(a)     AO2 / AO3 = 2
Award 2 marks for an appropriate non-directional hypothesis which is operationalised. ‘There is a relationship between happiness scores on a questionnaire and intelligence test scores’.
Award 1 mark for a non-directional hypothesis which is not fully operationalised or lacks clarity (‘there is a relationship between happiness and intelligence’).
Award no marks for a null or directional hypothesis, or one that predicts a difference / link / association / connection.
(b)     AO2/AO3 = 4
An interview is the most likely answer. An interview would be a more appropriate method than a questionnaire as it enables questions to be clarified and responses to be probed, thus overcoming the main disadvantages of questionnaires.
Students could also make a case for the analysis of diaries/written materials as a way of collecting data about happiness. These would generally overcome the problems of social desirability and demand characteristics inherent in questionnaires. Students could also make a case for the use of observation.
Award one mark for identifying an appropriate method. Award up to three further marks for an explanation of why this method would be better than a questionnaire.
(c)     AO2/AO3 = 2 
Award 1 mark each for any two of the following reasons:
•        Study is looking for a correlation (relationship)
•        Suitable for pairs of scores
•        The data type obtained is ordinal, at least ordinal or interval level
•        Linear relationship between scores.
(d)    AO2/AO3 = 3
Students should state that the obtained value of + 0.42 exceeds the critical value for a twotailed test (.362) for N = 30. The results are therefore statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) Award 2 marks for a student who supplies two pieces of information. Award 1 mark for a student who states that the results are significant but does not provide an explanation OR the student who states results are significant but uses incorrect values from the table. Award 0 marks for students who argue that results are not significant.
(e)    AO2/AO3 = 4
This question requires students to interpret a further correlation co-efficient (this time demonstrating a non-significant negative correlation) and put both findings together. For full marks, answers should cover the two key bullet points below:
•        At age 11, there is a significant positive correlation between happiness and intelligence, demonstrating that more intelligent children tend to be happier
•        At age 16, the correlation is not statistically significant.
Students may also make the point that there may be a weak tendency for more intelligent teenagers to be less happy at 16 years of age, although this is not statistically significant. Students may also refer to the contradiction in the results or provide an overall conclusion.
 
AO2 / AO3 Mark bands	
4 marks Effective
Effective analysis and understanding.
The answer includes the findings of the two studies which are expressed clearly and fluently with appropriate reference to intelligence and happiness. Effective use of statistical terminology.	
3 marks Reasonable
Reasonable analysis and understanding. The answer is generally focussed and includes reference to both of the key findings which are reasonably clear. There is reasonable use of statistical terminology.	
2 marks Basic
Basic, superficial understanding. The answer is sometimes focussed OR covers only one of the key conclusions. Expression of ideas lacks clarity. Limited use of statistical terminology.	
1 mark Rudimentary
Rudimentary with very limited understanding.
The answer is weak, muddled and may be mainly irrelevant.
Deficiency in expression of ideas results in confusion and ambiguity. The answer lacks structure, often merely a series of unconnected assertions.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material is presented.	
Q17.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
AO3 = 4
The data suggest that the confederates have a considerable influence on whether or not the participant obeys; candidates could consider the implications of the difference between 92.5% and 10%. They might consider whether the confederates are acting as role models, informing the participant how to behave. Credit could also include comparison of power of confederates with power of having the experimenter in the same room.
The question is not just asking candidates to describe the data in the table, but to consider the effect that the confederates have, to access the top bands answers need to be shaped to fit the question.
 
AO3   Interpretation of data	
4 marks   Accurate and reasonably detailed
Accurate and reasonably detailed answer that demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of what the data suggest about obedience.  There is appropriate selection of material to address the question.	
3 marks  Less detailed but generally accurate
Less detailed but generally accurate answer that demonstrates relevant knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence of selection of material to address the question.	
2 marks  Basic
Basic answer that demonstrates some relevant knowledge and understanding but lacks detail and may be muddled. There is little evidence of selection of material to address the question.	
1 mark  Very brief/flawed or inappropriate
Very brief or flawed answer demonstrating very little knowledge. Selection and presentation of information is largely or wholly inappropriate.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
Q18.
(a)     AO2 / AO3 = 3
A suitable non-directional hypothesis would be ‘There is a correlation (relationship) between pupils’ scores on a test of mathematical ability and pupils’ scores on a test of musical ability’.
3 marks for a fully operationalised non-directional hypothesis.
2 marks for non-directional hypothesis that identifies both variables but does not operationalise them.
1 mark for non-directional hypothesis where the variables are not identified.
No marks for a null or directional hypothesis or one referring to association or difference.
(b)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
The main issue is that the teacher has made up her own test:
•        This involved subjective judgement on the part of the teacher who rates the students’ musical ability. Her judgement may not reflect real differences in musical ability and is likely to differ from other people’s judgement and / or any absolute criteria for tunefulness.
•        Lack of reliability in rating musical ability would compromise the validity of the measure.
•        As the students can choose the song they will sing, the rating of ability could reflect the teacher liking / dislike of the song rather than the student’s ability.
•        The rating may be invalid as the students selected songs which varied in difficulty so the tunefulness reflected the difficulty of the song not the students’ ability.
•        Operationalising musical ability as tuneful singing is a very narrow measure. Someone can have musical ability such as playing an instrument which would not be reflected by this measure.
1 mark for identifying an appropriate reason.
2 further marks for elaboration, explanation of why it is a problem, how it might affect the result or for further reason(s).
Note that 3 marks can be awarded for one reason elaborated or more than one reason in less detail.
(c)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
In the case of the maths test candidates could refer to split half or test retest as methods of checking reliability. They could also refer to checking the reliability of scoring by using two separate markers for the test and comparing the scores. Credit any other appropriate suggestion.
1 mark for identifying an appropriate method or a brief explanation eg ‘repeat the maths test’.
2 further marks for appropriate elaboration.
(d)     AO2 / AO3 = 2 
The teacher chose to use a random sample because it would probably be more representative of the whole GCSE group than if she had used an opportunity or volunteer sample. Candidates could also say that she had ready access to her target population making it convenient for her to select a random sample.
No credit for definition of a random sample.
1 mark for a brief or muddled reason (it is not biased).
2 marks for a reason that clearly points to an advantage of random sampling. This could be achieved through a comparison with another method (it is less likely to be biased than a volunteer sample).
(e)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
Credit should only be awarded for scattergraphs. Other graphs gain 0 marks.
1 mark for appropriately plotted scores.
1 mark for an appropriate title.
1 mark for correctly labelled axes.
 
(f)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
Up to 3 marks for a discussion of the relationship between mathematical and musical ability. Likely points include:
•        The graph seems to show a negative correlation between mathematical and musical ability.
•        This means that high scorers in mathematical ability tend to achieve low scores on musical ability and vice versa.
•        The presence of two strong outliers, means that the actual correlation is very weak and closer to zero.
•        Comment on the small sample size which limits the conclusions that could be drawn.
•        Credit can be achieved for plausible interpretations of the strength of the correlation which are justified (ie looks moderate to strong or the outliers make it weak in practice) or those based on rough calculations (around -0.2).
1 mark for a very brief answer eg negative correlation or zero correlation.
2 further marks for elaboration/discussion this could be focused on one point in detail or several points in less detail.
(g)     AO2 / AO3 = 10 
In this question, candidates are asked to design a study to test if there is a difference between left-handed and right-handed students in musical ability.
Design – 1 mark
•        Award 1 mark for identification of an appropriate design (independent measures or matched pairs).
Sampling – 2 marks
•        Award 1 mark for explaining an appropriate sampling method and 1 further mark for justifying why this method would be appropriate. As left-handed people are less common in the population than right-handed people this needs to be addressed in the sampling method.
Procedure and assessment of musical ability – 4 marks
Award 1 mark for procedure, 1 mark for assessing musical ability and two further marks for elaboration of either or both of these.
•        Description of the procedure eg each participant will be given a standardised musical ability test, participants should be tested within a controlled environment, with minimal noise or distraction.
•        Students are required to suggest a plausible alternative method of assessing musical ability to the one in the stem (eg singing a short, novel phrase played on the piano). Further credit could be given for stating that the test should be identical for all students or for explaining how it will be assessed.
Debrief – 3 marks
•        Award up to 3 marks for writing a debrief. This could include the aim of the study, thanking participants for taking part, asking if they have any questions, relevant ethical considerations.
•        If this is not suitable to be read out to participants, maximum 1 mark.
(h)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
Award 1 mark for a clear table appropriate for the study described in (h).
Musical ability scores:
 
Participant number	Left handed	Right handed	
1	 	 	
2	 	 	
3	 	 	
Award 1 mark for the identification of an appropriate statistical test for the proposed design.
Award 1 mark for one correct justification eg a test of difference, at least ordinal level data.
Q19.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
[AO3 = 2]
One mark for knowledge of what is meant by quantitative data: data in numerical form; data representing how much there is of something.
The second mark is for an example of a specific behaviour: such as Pavlov - a measure of the amount of saliva produced by the dog; or Skinner, the time taken to respond to a stimulus (to peck a button / press a lever / jump over a barrier / reach a goal box etc) or number of responses to a stimulus (pecks, lever presses in a given time period).
Q20.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
[AO3 = 2]
One mark for each reason applied to the behaviourist approach. For two valid points only - allow 1 mark. Likely answers will probably include: subjectivity of qualitative data / open to interpretation; cannot be replicated; not open to quantification and statistical analysis; specific so not amenable to generalization; not associated with the scientific approach.
Credit relevant comparison to quantitative data collection.
Q21.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
(a)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for an explanation.
Inform researcher of spread of scores.
One mark for link to the study.
The programme did not seem to affect people in each condition differentially as spread of scores in each condition is similar / large.
The offenders’ anger behaviour showed a wide variation both before and after the programme.
Accept spread is greater in the after condition than before.
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for statement that the result is significant.
One mark for rationale: the calculated value of T is 22 and is less than the critical value of 25 (at the 0.05 level of significance).
Can accept not significant at 0.02 level.
(c)     [AO3 = 3]
Maximum of 3 marks can be obtained from: one mark for each reason or two marks for each reason with explanation.
•        Reason – ordinal level of measurement / non-parametric
Explanation – self reports / estimated scores of anger; data might not be normally distributed
•        Reason – design of the study is related / repeated measure
Explanation – same people before and after
•        Reason – research involving differences between the 2 sets of scores
Explanation – anger scores before and after
(d)     [AO3 = 4]
Up to two marks for each reason and explanation. Likely points: as an aid to memory; a qualitative measure to supplement the quantitative data collected; to check the validity of the questionnaire; part of the therapeutic process / increased self-awareness.
Accept other valid reasons.
One mark for an appropriate reason and one mark for an explanation of the reason.
(e)     [AO3 = 3]
Up to three marks for outlining how a control group could have improved this study: it is not possible to tell if the programme has caused the improvement; improvement could have been due to the programme or due to spontaneous recovery; by using a control group would make it more scientific; scores can be taken at the same times (pre-programme / post-programme) as in an experimental condition; post programme differences between the groups can inform if programme is effective; can be more confident in inferring cause and effect .
Allow a maximum of one mark for the general purpose of a control condition: acts as comparison / baseline measure where nothing changes
Accept ‘scientific’ and ‘validity’ only if justified.
(f)     [AO3 = 5]
Up to 5 marks for addressing both reliability and validity. One of these marks must be for reference to statistical testing.
A maximum of three marks if only one of these is addressed.
One mark for identifying a type of validity: face validity; concurrent validity. Accept also content validity; criterion validity; predictive validity.
Only accept identification mark if it matches how the assessment would be carried out.
One mark for outlining how the assessment would be carried out. For example in concurrent validity, scores from the questionnaire are compared with those from an established but similar questionnaire known to have good validity to see if the results are similar.
One mark for the statistical testing (checking for a positive correlation / applying Spearman’s rank order correlation).
One mark for identifying a way of assessing reliability. Most likely is test-retest but accept split-half reliability and item analysis.
Only accept identification mark if it matches how the assessment would be carried out.
Do not accept inter-rated / inter-observer reliability.
One mark for outlining how the assessment would be carried out. For example in test-retest, the same group of young offenders would be tested using the same questionnaire at a later date to see if the findings remained consistent.
One mark for the statistical testing (checking for a positive correlation / applying Spearman’s rank order correlation).
The one mark for statistical testing can only be credited once.
Q22.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
 
(a)     AO3 = 4 
The independent variable is age at which the children started day care, or whether the children started day care before or after age 2.
1 mark for age.
2 marks where the IV is operationalised as above.
The dependent variable is aggression score as assessed by the researcher.
1 mark for aggression.
2 marks for aggression score, measure of aggression, level of aggression.
If either IV or DV is identified but not entirely clear – 1 mark.
(b)     AO3 = 2
1 mark for pointing out the difference is small or the age of starting day care didn’t make much difference to mean aggression score.
1 mark for stating the children who started day care before age 2 had a higher mean score than those who started after the age of 2.
1 mark for saying both groups mean score was approximately half the maximum.
Maximum 2 marks.
Eg “The mean aggression score was slightly higher for children who started day care before the age of 2.” 2 marks
Candidates can gain 2 marks by two brief points or one point elaborated.
(c)     AO3 = 1 
1 mark for:        range
                semi-interquartile range
                interquartile range
                standard deviation or
                variance.
Do not credit:   deviation or interquartile.
(d)     AO3 = 3
0 marks if the candidate has not drawn a bar chart.
1 mark if the candidate has drawn a bar chart but the scale is clearly inappropriate and not correctly labelled.
2 marks if the candidate has drawn a correctly labelled bar chart but the scale is clearly inappropriate; or the candidate has drawn an appropriate bar chart but the labelling is incomplete eg vertical axis refers to mean score or aggression score rather than mean aggression score.
For full marks the bar chart should indicate a small difference. Both bars and the vertical axis should be correctly labelled.
(e)     AO3 = 2 
0 marks for a non-directional hypothesis or a correlational hypothesis.
1 mark if either variable is not operationalised eg day care makes children more aggressive or the answer is slightly muddled.
2 marks for eg Children who start day care before age 2 have higher aggression scores than those who start day care after age 2, or Children who start day care at a younger age will be assessed as more aggressive than children who start day care at an older age.
Credit a directional hypothesis in the opposite direction.
Q23.
AO3 = 4
The graph shows a strong negative correlation between score on depression scale and weeks of treatment. The more treatments the lower the depression. However, there also seems to be a plateau, where between 2-3.5 weeks there is very little change in depression.
1 mark for each of the following:
•        Strength (it is a moderately strong / strong correlation)
•        Direction (negative)
•        Description of the relationship (the longer the treatment the lower the depression score)
•        Indication of plateau / change in direction.
Q24.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
(a)     [AO3 = 2]
For two marks, a clear, testable statement containing both conditions of the IV and an operationalised DV.

For one mark, a statement containing both conditions of the IV and a DV.

No marks for expressions of aim, questions, correlational hypotheses or statements without two conditions.

Possible answers:

Directional: Participants will successfully shoot more netballs through the hoop in the presence of an audience than in the absence of an audience.

Note: Also accept a directional hypothesis opposite to the above.

Non-directional: There will be a difference in the number of netballs successfully shot through the hoop for participants who perform in the presence of an audience and participants who perform in the absence of an audience.

Credit null hypothesis.
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for an appropriate conclusion eg the presence of an audience has a positive effect on the performance of the task (or similar response) (AO3, 1).

One mark for the justification of the response eg the mean number of netballs successfully shot through the hoop is higher when there is an audience than when there is no audience (or similar response) (AO3, 1).
(c)     [AO3 = 3]
 
To gain the maximum three marks, candidates must provide the following:
•        An appropriate title for the graphical display
•        Appropriate axes and labelled eg presence / absence of an audience
•        Plotting of data using a sensible scale / no penalty for joined bars.
Line graphs can be credited for title and axes only.
(d)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for a relevant strength. 
One mark for how / why it is a strength.

Likely strengths: more likely to be representative of the target population; able to generalise to the target population; to exclude researcher bias etc.
(e)     (i)      [AO3 = 2]
One mark for a relevant limitation of an independent groups design. 
One mark for how / why in relation to this study eg individual differences in ability / height etc.
(ii)     [AO3 = 2]
Up to two marks for an appropriate explanation of how the problem may have been overcome.

Possible answer: Using a repeated measures design (1) plus explanation of how this could be done or why this would improve the study.

Credit answers that refer to matched pairs / need for random allocation.

Can credit (ii) in respect of incorrect answer to (i).
(f)    (i)      [AO3 = 1]
One mark for correct knowledge of the term.

Possible answer: A variable other than the independent variable or an additional / or another variable that might have an effect on the dependent variable, only accept the word ‘results’ for DV (1).
(ii)     [AO3 = 2]
One mark for stating that if EVs are not controlled for, then the results may be confounded (1) the researcher does not know what is causing the effect (1) or other suitable expansion eg effect on reliability or validity.

Do not accept - results will not be accurate.

Credit answers that refer to the study by way of illustration.
(g)     [AO3 = 4]
Instruction must be written verbatim for more than 1 mark.
 
Essential points

Optional	-  reference to presence of audience 
-  reference to shooting (hoops) throwing (hoops)

-  where to stand 
-  ethics 
-  introduction of self	
 
4 marks	Both essential and at least one optional point addressed clearly such that completion of the task in the experimental condition would be easily possible. 
Information should be clear, relevant, sensible and logically structured. 
Must be verbatim.	
3 marks	Both essential points are addressed such that completion of the task in the experimental condition would be relatively easy. There may be deficiencies in clarity, some irrelevance, illogical sequencing or inappropriate content. 
Must be verbatim.	
2 marks	Any two points are addressed. There may be omissions / irrelevancies / muddle such that completion of the task would be very difficult. 
Must be verbatim.	
1 marks	There must be at least one relevant point (optional or essential). Information may be unclear / inappropriate / irrelevant / muddled such that completion of the task would be very difficult.	
0 marks	No relevant information. Completion of the task would not be possible.	
NB 2 - 4 marks = Verbatim Instructions
Q25.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
(a)     AO3 = 2
0 marks for a non-directional or correlational hypothesis.
The DV in this experiment is number of pictures correctly identified. Hypotheses where the DV is incorrect (eg number of participants who identified 10 pictures) = 0 marks.
1 mark if not fully operationalised, eg Participants who used the memory improvement strategy did better.
2 marks Participants who use a memory improvement strategy will correctly identify more pictures / objects than participants who do not use a memory improvement strategy.
(b)     AO3 = 1
In an independent groups design a different group of participants is used in each condition.
1 mark =          Different participants / people in each condition / group
               Different / separate groups
               Random allocation to groups / conditions.
0 marks =        Different / separate conditions
               Independent participants / people
               Different experiments.
(c)     AO3 = 2 + 2 
Strength
The participants are naÏve because they take part in only one condition, so are less likely to show demand characteristics. There are no order effects such as practice or fatigue because participants take part in one condition.
Limitation
Individual variation, because there are different participants in each condition. More participants are needed than if a repeated measures design was used.
In each case 1 mark for very brief or slightly muddled strength or limitation, 2nd mark for appropriate elaboration of explanation.
0 marks for simply stating there are different participants in each condition.
(d)     AO3 = 3
A pilot study is used to check aspects of the research such as whether participants understand standardised instructions, whether timings are adequate etc. It allows the researcher to try out the study with a few participants so that adjustments can be made before the main study, so saving time and money.
1 mark for a very brief explanation. Further marks for appropriate elaboration or identification of other reasons. Eg
To check it works. 1 mark
To check the standardised instructions are clear. 2 marks
To check the standardised instructions are clear enough for the participants to understand what they are required to do in the experiment. 3 marks
This question requires an explanation of why a pilot study was used, so a description of what a pilot study is (small scale study carried out before the main research) is not credit-worthy on its own. Candidates do not have to refer to a specific aspect of this experiment.
However, to gain full marks the answer must be relevant, so reference to checking sound levels for example would not be relevant.
(e)     AO3 = 2
The standard deviation (spread of scores) is larger in the condition with the memory improvement strategy.
Candidates who use the word ‘rangeߣ to suggest spread should be credited.
1 mark The standard deviation is larger in the condition with the memory improvement strategy.
2 marks The data shows the dispersion or spread of scores is larger in the condition with the memory improvement strategy.
Q26.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
 (a)     AO3 = 1
10 children.
(b)     AO3 = 2
Number of aggressive acts shown during a 10-minute observation. Aggression score on a questionnaire completed by parents.
1 mark for brief or slightly muddled answer, eg ask children’s mothers how aggressive they are.
2nd mark for accurate elaboration, eg ask children’s mothers how aggressive they are on a scale from 1 to 10.
(c)     AO3 = 3
This is a correlational study, not an experiment, and correlation does not prove a causal relationship. Children who are already aggressive may be put into day care for longer, or another variable, such as parents’ divorce, may contribute to high scores for both time in day care and aggression.
1 mark eg correlation doesn’t prove cause or simply stating that aggression may be a result of other factors.
2 further marks for accurate elaboration as above.
Credit any explanation that focuses on causal inference.
An alternative approach is to argue that some research contradicts this claim. 1 mark for there is contradictory evidence and further marks for accurate reference to relevant research.
0 marks for reference to media exaggeration or individual children.
Q27.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
 AO3 = 4
•        The two averages are very similar, suggesting that both therapies are as good as each other.
•        The range of each group is very different. This suggests that for some people Therapy A was very beneficial, but for others it had little benefit. For Therapy B, there was a much smaller range, suggesting that it has a similar effect on improvement for all the patients.
 
4 marks  Effective interpretation of data
Effective interpretation that demonstrates sound knowledge of what the data shows, with reference to both the average and the range.	
3 marks  Reasonable interpretation of data
Reasonable interpretation of what the data shows; or effective interpretation of either the average or the range.	
2 marks  Basic interpretation of data
Basic interpretation of what the data shows.	
1 mark  Rudimentary interpretation of data
Rudimentary, muddled interpretation of the data, demonstrating very limited knowledge. Or reference to, for example, larger range/higher average/similar range.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
Q28.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
(a)     AO2 / AO3 = 2
'There is an association between birth order and choice of career' = 2 marks.
A directional hypothesis is not credit-worthy. Reference to a relationship / correlation cannot gain credit.
Although technically, the psychologist is looking for an association, candidates can gain credit for expressing the hypothesis in terms of a difference eg 'There is a difference in career choice depending on birth order.'
2 marks for a clear hypothesis, 1 mark for a hypothesis which lacks clarity.
(b)     AO2 / AO3 = 3 
One mark for identifying a sampling method.
One mark for a brief explanation of how to obtain the sample eg 'by advertising for lawyers or artists to come forward’. One further mark for elaboration eg ‘by explaining that adverts would have to be placed in appropriate journals etc to attract these particular categories of participants’
Candidates who identify a sampling method but describe it incorrectly can be awarded 1 mark.
(c)     AO2 / AO3 = 12 
This is a 12 mark question but marks are allocated to each of the required components as follows:
•        An appropriately labelled table = 2 marks
1 mark for a table that displays the data in the question.
2 marks for a table which includes data relating to non first-born children. Totals are not required for the 2 marks.
Table: Table to show the career choices of first born and non-first born children
 
•        a sketch of an appropriately labelled bar chart = 3 marks
For 3 marks, candidates need to display the data relating to first born and non-first born career choices on a bar chart. They should label axes correctly and draw the columns to the correct approximate height for a sketch.
For 2 marks, candidates display data as above but labels are missing or lack clarity. For 1 mark, candidates graph the data supplied in the question relating to first born career choices only.
 
NB Labelled axes but no bars = 0 marks.
•        identification of appropriate statistical test and justification = 1 + 2 marks
An appropriate test here is the Chi-squared.
Justification gains 2 marks. Any two correct reasons from:
•        data are independent 
•        level of measurement is nominal 
•        test of association / difference is required.
•       identification of appropriate significance level = 1 mark.
The most likely significance level is 5% (p ≤ 0.05). Candidates are not asked to justify their choice. Candidates who choose a more stringent level can achieve marks but they must then follow this through when they make their statement of results.
Candidates who erroneously report 0.05% or p = 0.5 do not gain credit for level of significance but can achieve credit for the statement of results in relation to the hypothesis.
•        a statement of the results of the statistical test in relation to the hypothesis = 3 marks.
For full marks, the candidate should state whether or not they can accept the hypothesis (or they can express this in terms of rejecting the null hypothesis) at a given significance level and refer to the observed and critical values.
Where candidates choose an inappropriate value from the table but interpret that value correctly, they can gain 2 marks.
The critical value for x² (df =1 p 0.05 (two-tailed)) is 3.84. As the observed value of x² 2.27 is less than the critical value, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. There is not an association between birth order and career choice.
Q29.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
 (a)     AO3 = 1
Independent groups. Accept “independent” but not “individual”. Unrelated and between groups / subjects are also credit-worthy.
(b)     AO3 = 2 
There may be differences between the groups as there are different participants in each condition.
More participants are required than for a repeated measures design.
1 mark for very brief or muddled answer eg individual differences or needs more participants.
2 marks as above.
(c)     AO3 = 2 
The graph shows the cognitive interview is effective. There were more correct statements made after the cognitive interview than after the traditional interview. There was no difference in the number of incorrect statements made.
1 mark for a very brief or muddled statement. Eg It shows it’s effective.
2 marks for some elaboration with reference to either correct statements, incorrect statements or both.
(d)     AO2 = 2
The answer should clearly relate to one or more of the main techniques used in a cognitive interview:
Context reinstatement
Recall from a changed perspective
Recall in reverse order
Report everything.
The main additional features of the enhanced cognitive interview:
Encourage to relax and speak slowly
Offer comments to help clarify their statements
Adapt questions to suit the understanding of individual witnesses.
1 mark for simple identification of a relevant cognitive technique, or a very brief suggestion eg “tell me everything you saw.”
Further mark for application or elaboration. Eg “Please tell me everything you can remember about the robbery from the film you have just seen”, or “Report all the details you can remember even if they don’t seem very relevant.” 2 marks.
Answers which could not relate to the film or robbery should be restricted to a maximum of 1 mark.
(e)     AO3 = 4 
Investigator effects occur when the researcher’s behaviour or characteristics influence the research in some way. This includes the way the presence of the researcher may influence the participants.
0 marks for an incorrect answer or one which simply re-states the words eg “how the investigator effects research”.
1 mark very brief or muddled answer eg the researcher’s influence.
Maximum 2 marks for an accurate understanding of investigator effects but no reference to this experiment.
Candidates whose explanation of possible investigator effects in this experiment shows understanding of the term can be awarded 4 marks, even though there is no separate definition.
Eg The psychologist may expect the cognitive interview to be more effective than the standard interview. This may be unconsciously communicated to the participants though mannerisms such as smiling or frowning. (4 marks). There are different routes to 4 marks.
Candidates could be stronger on definitions or stronger on application.
Q30.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
AO3 = 4
Possible conclusions:
•        Some therapies are more successful for some disorders than other therapies.
•        For some disorders there is little difference between the different types of therapy.
•        For disorder A, biological therapies are much more effective than any other therapy.
•        Psychoanalytic therapies are not very effective, except for disorder C, but even here, there is little difference between the three types of therapy.
Findings should only be credited if they are explicitly linked to a conclusion.
Candidates could offer several conclusions or only a few, there is a breadth / depth trade-off.
 
4 marks Accurate and reasonably detailed
Accurate and reasonably detailed answer that demonstrates sound interpretation and understanding of what the bar chart shows about the effectiveness of different types of therapies. There is appropriate selection of material to address the question.	
3 marks Less detailed but generally accurate
Less detailed but generally accurate answer that demonstrates interpretation and understanding. There is some evidence of selection of material to address the question.	
2 marks Basic
Basic answer that demonstrates some relevant interpretation and understanding but lacks detail and may be muddled. There is little evidence of selection of material to address the question.	
1 mark Very brief / flawed or inappropriate
Very brief or flawed answer demonstrating very little understanding. Selection and presentation of information is largely or wholly inappropriate.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
Q31.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
(a)     AO3 = 2 
0 marks for a directional hypothesis.
1 mark if not operationalised, eg “Age affects memory.” “There will be a difference between the two conditions.”
2 marks for eg “There will be a difference in how many numbers are correctly recalled by children and adults.” “Children and adults have different short-term memory spans.” Or “The capacity of short-term memory is different for adults and children.
Candidates may write a hypothesis where the IV is how many numbers are in the list and the DV is the number of participants who can recall that digit span.
Eg As numbers in the list increase, recall changes. 1 mark.
As the number of random numbers in the list increases, the number of participants recalling the list correctly, changes. 2 marks.
(b)     AO3 = 2 
The experiment uses adults in one condition and children in the other so it would be impossible to use a repeated design unless the researchers waited for the children to grow into adults.
Given the nature of this experiment, demand characteristics and order effects are inappropriate.
1 mark for a brief explanation. A further mark for elaboration. Eg Can compare the two different groups to see who is better. 0 marks (because this relates to all experimental designs).
They needed to have different people in each condition. 1 mark.
They needed to have different people in each condition based on age. 2 marks.
They needed to have children in one group and adults in the other. 2 marks.
(c)     AO3 = 2 
Children   6
Adults      7
1 mark for each correct answer.
(d)     AO3 = 3 
The frequency distribution shows that there is a difference in results between the two age groups.
Adults recalled more digits than children. However, the difference is small and some children recalled more digits than some adults. Candidates might refer to the modal scores being different while the range is the same.
Any credit-worthy material should be credited.
1 mark for a very brief answer eg identifying there is a difference between adults and children and / or adults score more than children. Further marks for more detail as above.
(e)     AO2 = 2 
Other research has suggested the capacity of short-term memory is 7 + / – 2. The results do support this as the range is from 5-9.
1 mark for a brief or muddled explanation eg capacity is 5-9 / other research has similar findings.
2nd mark for elaboration as above.
Candidates will be credited for reference to research such as Jacobs which found STM increases with age. However, reference to such research is not a requirement.
Q32.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
  (a)     AO2 / 3 = 4
For any credit, candidates must sketch a scattergram.
For full marks, candidates should provide an appropriate title for the scattergram, label each of the axes appropriately and plot the data accurately on the scattergram.
Each of the examples below is a full mark answer because:
•        it is clearly a sketch of a scattergram
•        the data are appropriately plotted
•        the labels of the axes and the title taken together show full understanding of the nature of the data.

(b)     AO2 / 3 = 4 
For full marks, candidates should give a reasonably detailed explanation eg she is concerned because the observers should both recognise the same types of verbal behaviour as aggressive and you would expect their tallies to be very similar. In this case, the observers disagree in every 10-minute time interval even though they are both watching the same child and should be using the same criteria. In some time slots, there is a really big difference in the number of acts. 
This suggests that the observers have interpreted the criteria differently or that, at certain times, one observer was more vigilant then the other (4 marks).
1 mark – ‘because the observers do not agree with each other’.
3 further marks for elaboration.
Candidates who simply describe what is meant by inter-rate reliability can gain no marks.
(c)     AO2 / 3 = 3 
1 mark for identifying the appropriate test – Spearman’s Rho or Pearson’s (with appropriate justification).
2 further marks for explaining why it is appropriate ie the psychologist is testing for a correlation and the data that can be treated as ordinal.
Candidates can gain no marks on this question if their choice of statistical test is inappropriate.
(d)     AO2 / 3 = 4 
1 mark for a very brief answer eg ‘better training for the observers’
3 further marks for elaboration.
There is a breadth / depth trade-off here. Candidates can elaborate on one improvement eg explain how the training might be improved or outline several improvements in less detail eg establish clearer criteria for categorising verbal aggression, filming the child so that the observers can practise the categorisation.
Q33.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
 AO3 = 2
This graph shows a fairly strong negative correlation between stress and white blood cell activity / the immune system. As the stress increases the immune functioning decreases. The following can all receive a mark: direction, strength, and a description of their relationship.
Q34.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
AO3 = 4
Conclusions can include: there are two factors that influence conformity, the ambiguity of the task and the size of the majority. A large majority is most influential with an ambiguous task, but still exerts pressure even when the task is easy. However, a small majority has less effect and the type of task does not seem to be an important variable.
 
4 marks Accurate and reasonably detailed
Accurate and reasonably detailed answer that demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of what the bar chart shows about conformity. There is appropriate selection of material to address the question.	
3 marks Less detail but generally accurate
Less detailed but generally accurate answer that demonstrates knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence of material to address the question.	
2 marks Basic
Basic answer that demonstrates some relevant knowledge and understanding but lacks detail and may be muddled. There is little evidence of selection of material to address the question.	
1 mark Very brief/flawed of inappropriate
Very brief or flawed answer demonstrating very little knowledge. Selection and presentation of information is largely or wholly inappropriate.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material.	
Q35.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
Although the essential content for this mark scheme remains the same, mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) take a different format as follows:
•        A single set of numbered levels (formerly bands) to cover all skills 
•        Content appears as a bulleted list
•        No IDA expectation in A Level essays, however, credit for references to issues, debates and approaches where relevant.
 (a)     AO2 / 3 = 2
One mark for one brief finding and a further mark for appropriate elaboration or for two brief findings or one mark for a slightly muddled answer.
On average, the treatment group showed greater improvement after the treatment than the no-treatment group. The average improvement score for the no-treatment group was very low suggesting that the treatment gains for the treatment group were not simply a result of the passage of time.
There was some variation in both groups as shown by the ranges but it was wider in the treatment group. The low range in the no-treatment group suggests that most people in this group had similar low improvement scores.
(b)     AO1 = 1, AO2 / 3 = 3
One mark for identification of a suitable test and 3 further marks for an appropriate justification.The specification only requires knowledge of non-parametric tests. However, if a candidate names an independent t-test and justifies its use, this is perfectly acceptable. It is likely that most candidates will identify a non-parametric test. The most appropriate test is the Mann-Whitney and the justifications for its use are:
•        independent groups design
•        at least ordinal data
•        differences.
(c)     AO2 / 3 = 2 
One mark for correctly identifying the likelihood and one further mark for an appropriate explanation or one mark for a slightly muddled answer.
The likelihood of making a Type 1 error is 5%. A Type 1 error occurs when a researcher claims support for the research hypothesis with a significant statistical test, but in fact, the variations in the scores are due to chance variables. If the level of significance is set at 5%, there will always be a one in twenty chance or less that the results are due to chance rather than to the influence of the independent variable or some other factors.
(d)     AO2 / 3 = 4 
Two marks for each reason. One mark for a basic identification and one further mark for elaboration.
Possible reasons include:
Expectations – the patients might expect the treatment to do them some good and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Biased sample – even though the participants were randomly assigned to groups, the treatment group might, by chance have included more people with milder symptoms that were more likely to respond to treatment.
Other support – we do not know what other support/ treatment that the participants might have had over the 8 week therapy period.
(e)     AO2 / 3 = 4 
Two marks for the advantage and two marks for the disadvantage. One mark for simply identifying an advantage / disadvantage and the further mark for elaboration in the context of the study. Answers which are not set in context cannot achieve full marks.
Advantage: Much quicker to administer and to score – could all have been given out at the same time whereas the therapist has to conduct 30 time-consuming interviews; cheaper than interviews, ie in terms of the therapist’s time; people might be more comfortable, and, therefore, more honest, if they have to write responses rather than face an interviewer (could work the other way as well – see disadvantages).
Disadvantage: Self-report questionnaires might not yield as accurate data as an interview – questions can limit range of answers and there are no additional cues, eg body language, participants might be less honest on a questionnaire than in a face-to-face interview.
Marks can be awarded for any appropriate advantages / disadvantages.
(f)     AO2 / 3 = 5 
Candidates should demonstrate understanding of some of the requirements of a good consent form. For full marks, it should be succinct, clear and informative.
It is likely to include some of the following information: treatment programme that is noninvasive; requirement to be assessed on current level of functioning; use of a trained therapist to conduct interviews; duration of the programme; requirement for re-assessment at the end of the programme; random allocation to a treatment or no-treatment group.
It should show awareness of ethical considerations, eg
•        no pressure to consent – it will not affect any other aspects of their treatment if they choose not to take part
•        they can withdraw at any time
•        they can withdraw their data from the study
•        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.
For full marks, candidates must include a range of both procedural and ethical points.
 
AO2 / 3 Mark Bands (5 marks)	
5 marks Effective
Consent form demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of research ethics.	
4 – 3 marks Reasonable
Consent form demonstrates reasonable knowledge and understanding of research ethics.	
2 marks Basic
Consent form demonstrates basic, superficial knowledge and understanding of research ethics.	
1 mark Rudimentary
Consent form is rudimentary demonstrating very limited understanding of research ethics.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material is presented.	
(g)     AO1 = 2, AO2 / 3 = 2
AO1: One mark for brief description, eg ’consistency’ and one further mark for elaboration. Reliability refers to consistency over time. If a test, questionnaire, etc, is reliable, people tend to score the same on the test if they take it again soon afterwards.
AO2 / 3: One mark for a very brief answer, eg ‘do another test’ or ‘test them again’ or ‘use another interviewer to check’. Two marks for some elaboration.
Reliability could have been checked by administering a valid and reliable questionnaire to the participants as well as interviewing them and then comparing the scores on the two measures. If the interview score was reliable, there would be strong positive correlation between the scores.
The interviews could have been filmed and given to another trained therapist to assess. A strong correlation between the scores given by each therapist would demonstrate reliability.
(h)     AO2 / 3 = 10 
For full marks, the method section should be written clearly, succinctly and in such a way that the study would be replicable. It should be set out in a conventional reporting style, possibly under appropriate headings. Examiners should be mindful that there are now different, but equally acceptable reporting styles. For example, candidates should not be penalised for writing in the first person. The important factor here is whether the study could be replicated.
There should be reasonable detail with regard to:
•        design
•        participants
•        materials
•        procedures.
 
AO2 / 3 Mark Bands (10 marks)	
10 – 9 marks Effective
Effective method section that demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of investigation design.
The design decisions are appropriate and the description provides accurate detail of the design, participants, materials and procedure of the study.
Effective and appropriate report style.	
8 – 6 marks Reasonable
The method section demonstrates reasonable knowledge and understanding of investigation design.
The design decisions are generally appropriate and the description provides reasonable detail of the design, participants, materials and procedure of the study.
Generally appropriate report style.	
5 – 3 marks Basic 
The method section demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding of investigation design.
Some aspects of the design are appropriate. The description provides basic detail of some features of the study or rudimentary outline of the main features.
Expression lacks clarity.	
2 – 1 mark Rudimentary 
The method section demonstrates rudimentary knowledge or understanding of research. The report is weak, muddled or incomplete.
Deficiency in expression results in confusion and ambiguity.	
0 marks
No creditworthy material is presented.	

Examiner reports
Q10.
This was a data response question, asking students to interpret the data in the table. The focus here must be on these results and not on prior knowledge. Answers that went beyond the data and discussed the findings of Bickman’s study, or Milgram’s findings did not gain credit. Better answers included comment on both what the confederate was wearing (smart versus casual) and the task involved (easy versus difficult). Some students appeared to think that the terms obedience and conformity are interchangeable.
Q11.
(a)     This question required a definition of content analysis which proved challenging for many students. Almost half of the answers achieved no marks at all. This was made more remarkable by the fact that most were able to gain some marks on part (b) where they were asked to explain how to carry out a content analysis for the data in question.
(b)     Most students were able to gain some marks here despite poor performance on part (a) and could identify in a basic way how to carry out a content analysis on the video recordings. Some were able to provide a clear description of the process but few appreciated that behavioural categories need to come from somewhere, whether that is from pilot work or previous research.
(c)     Most students were able to identify an appropriate method of testing the reliability of the content analysis and collect at least one mark. The most popular answers were test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Many failed to gain the three marks available as their explanation of how the method of checking reliability would be carried out lacked detail. A few students became side-tracked into improving reliability and a small number used split half which was inappropriate in relation to content analysis and gained no marks.
(d)     This question required students to explain why a repeated measures design was used in the experiment. Many students provided a basic answer referring to the need for less participants or the removal of individual differences but were unable to provide further explanation of why this would be important in this experiment. Students who thought about the scenario and elaborated their explanation with reference to reaction times, concentration or driving skills, achieved full marks.
(e)     There was a broad range of answers to this question and about 75% of students achieved no marks at all. Many students contradicted their previous answer to part (d) and referred incorrectly to individual differences in reaction times and a similar proportion referred to order effects which had been controlled by counterbalancing or driving experience. Some students picked up on the possibility of differences in the nature of the ‘chat’ on the phone which was encouraging. However, few students showed any awareness of the need to match the two hazard perception tests (stimulus materials / tasks) in this repeated measures design.
(f)     Many answers to this question displayed a marked lack of common sense. Despite referring to a simple hazard perception test, which is a key component of the driving test, many students claimed that watching a 3-minute film of a road would be traumatic, leading police drivers to suffer psychological harm. Others referred to possible deception and failed to appreciate that the purpose of the experiment is rather obvious in a repeated measures design. Better answers took issues such as informed consent / right to withdraw and explained how these related to this research.
(g)     The question on writing instructions was answered well, with around half of students achieving four or five marks. Some failed to gain full credit as their instructions referenced both conditions or failed to include a check of understanding. Very weak answers failed to refer to the conversation or made no reference to reacting as quickly as possible.
(h)     This question required students to identify an appropriate statistical test and justify their choice. About one third of students gained the full marks for identifying the Wilcoxon test with appropriate justification but just under half gained one mark only for identification of the test. Common problems included justification as a test of difference which gained no credit as it was included in the question. Other students were confused about the type of data required for the Wilcoxon test and many answers referred to ‘not nominal’ data. 
(i)     There is still evidence that few students understand the concepts of statistical error and well over half failed to gain any marks here. Some became confused between type 1 and type 2 errors and others referred to the number of hazards detected rather than reaction times.
(j)     This question was answered reasonably well, with many students referring to the greater potential for generalisation in a larger sample of inexperienced drivers. Some also referred to the general importance of replication to check findings in the context of the experiment, which was creditworthy.
Q12.
This was the first time on this paper that students had been required to sketch a graph and it was done very well indeed, in spite of the fact that many did not have a ruler or pencil. The main weakness was in correctly labelling the y-axis.
Q13.
(a)     This was generally answered well although a surprising number of students failed to include both elements of ‘order’ and ‘middle’ in their answers. Some students just presented the partial formula of n(+1) / 2 with no explanation of what this meant.
(b)     Students failed to notice that the DV was an ‘estimation’ not the median score.
(c)     Students are still poor at writing clear hypotheses with both conditions of the IV present and a measurable DV. Many answers were aims and the expression ‘more likely’ was often used.
(d)     Students were still confused about the term ‘experimental design’, often thinking it referred to conducting a field or laboratory experiment. Others did not realise that in both the first and second parts of the investigation the researcher was looking for a difference between the performances of men and women meaning that on both occasions the experimental design was independent groups.
(e)     Overall, there was a lack of clarity in some responses to this question. Unless students made it clear exactly how the researcher would end up with a sample of 15 men and 15 women from the factory, they could not gain full credit. References to random number generators / computers often did not describe how the names would become numbers.
(f)      This was answered well with the majority of students gaining at least one mark.
(g)    This was answered reasonably well with many students gaining at least 2 marks.
(h)    Unfortunately, once again, students did not recognise that if asked about debriefing participants then the focus is on telling people everything about the study in which they have just taken part. Too many answers merely concentrated on ethical points or added information which would not normally be available at debriefing, such as, details of all the results. Also, some accounts stated that participants could withdraw from the study, even though they had finished participating.
(i)      Students often limited themselves to one mark because they failed to develop the reason they proposed as an explanation for why researchers conduct pilot studies. In general, it is accepted that the purpose of a pilot study is to identify possible flaws so that they can be eliminated / to ensure the data collected is appropriate / to ensure time is not wasted.
Q14.
Some students failed to read the stem carefully and found it difficult to answer the question. It was insufficient to identify a technique as 'mental re-instatement'. Students were required to suggest the context was being mentally re-instated. Where students chose to write about mental re-instatement of the context, they needed to remember that they should refer to the context of watching a film of a violent crime. Many focussed on creating mental context within the film rather than of watching the film. Students who chose 're-instate the context' sometimes muddled their instructions to give instructions to 'recall everything'. Generally those who chose to focus on 'recall from a changed perspective', or 'recall in reverse order' found it easier to write instructions for the participants. A few students did not write instructions in direct speech and were limited to a maximum of one mark for the instructions.
Where students did not score full marks for this question, they had usually failed to refer to all of the figures in the table, or to draw any conclusion from the figures.
Q15.
Most students were able to state correctly that the correlation was a positive one; as scores on a stress questionnaire increased, so did the number of days off work through illness. Credit was also given to any reference to strength (moderate or strong) as well as to the flattening out of the graph.
While most students were able to consider the main weakness of correlations, few could correctly outline a strength. In fact many contradicted themselves by saying that a strength was the ability to show cause and effect on a graph and the weakness was that a causal relationship can never be assumed. Better answers referred to the strength as being the ability to study the relationship between variables that occur naturally; or to measure things that cannot be manipulated experimentally.
Q16.
(a)     Hypothesis writing continues to be a problematic for many students, despite the requirement to do this at AS level. Less than a third students achieved the full 2 marks available and a further third scored no marks at all, having mistakenly written a directional hypothesis or one which predicted a difference between happiness scores and intelligence scores. Many responses were lacking in clarity or failed to operationalise the variables sufficiently. The best answers were concisely and clearly worded such as “There is a correlation (relationship) between pupils’ scores on a standardised intelligence test and their scores on a questionnaire measuring happiness”, which achieved the full 2 marks.
(b)     Most students were able to identify an appropriate alternative method to collect data about happiness, the most popular choices being interviews, observations and diary studies. Some were able to provide a clear explanation of why this would be better, but weaker students became side-tracked into describing the possible method in detail (i.e. observational categories that might be used) and lost focus on the question of comparison. Better students were able to refer to precise advantages of their chosen method over questionnaires which were contextualised in relation to measuring happiness.
(c)     This question required students to give two reasons why Spearman’s rho was used to analyse the data. Almost all students were able to accurately identify one reason, which is encouraging!
(d)     Weaker students still struggle to interpret critical and obtained values appropriately. About a third of students managed to pick up the full 3 marks. Most of the remainder were able to say the result was significant, gaining one mark but went on to select the incorrect critical value from the table. A small number erroneously compared the correlation coefficient (0.42) with 0.5 demonstrating misunderstanding throughout the entire reasoning.
(e)     This question required students to interpret a further correlation coefficient (which was statistically insignificant) and put both pieces of information together to draw an overall conclusion to the reported study. This proved challenging and less than 5 % of answers achieved the full 4 marks here. Many students were able to identify that the scores demonstrated different kinds of relationships (positive and negative) but were unable to take this further and think about possible explanations. The better answers focused on the inability to establish cause in correlational research and the role played by other variables, in this case age. Some made use of their knowledge about reliability which was creditworthy.
Q17.
Better students were able to extract the relevant information from the table and use it effectively. They considered the baseline of 65% (no confederates) and then compared it to the other two conditions, 92.5% and 10%, which showed the power of confederates. They were also able to comment that in fact the disobedient confederates seemed to have more power than the obedient ones, perhaps by providing role models or allies.
Since this question only asked about the confederates, reference to the third condition (experimenter in different room) was not credit-worthy. This illustrates the need for students to read the question carefully and select and shape their answer accordingly.
A significant number of students confused conformity and obedience and used these terms interchangeably. They seemed to forget that this data referred to Milgram’s experiment into obedience and seemed to think that the confederates were a majority.
Q18.
(a)     Hypothesis writing continues to be problematic for many students, despite the requirement to do this at AS level. Around 40% of students achieved zero marks on this question , having mistakenly written a directional hypothesis or one which predicted a difference between mathematical ability and musical ability as opposed to a relationship. Many responses lacked clarity or failed to operationalise the variables sufficiently. The best answers were concisely and clearly worded such as “There is a correlation (relationship) between pupils scores on a test of mathematical ability and their scores on a test of musical ability”, which achieved the full 3 marks.
(b)     This question was answered well, with most students scoring two or all three marks. Weaker students were able to spot the test was based on a subjective judgement and some also made the point that singing was a poor measure of all round musical ability. Stronger students identified the lack of control (different choices of song) and were able to link this appropriately to investigator bias. Some students also made the point that the test lacked validity as it had not been standardised.
(c)     There was a broad range of answers to this question and about 40% of students achieved no marks at all. Some confused reliability with validity, suggesting various methods such as comparing the scores with another measure of maths ability. Few contextualised this by identifying alternate forms which would have been creditworthy. Others made reference to running a pilot study which received no marks.
The remaining 60% had some idea of ways of assessing reliability of the maths test, the most common methods being test-retest and split-half. Some used inter-rater reliability appropriately suggesting that two separate markers could be used for the maths test: others became sidetracked into assuming that the study was observational. Stronger students were able to explain two or three methods of checking reliability in reasonable detail.
(d)     This straightforward question on a random sample caught out quite a few students. Most were able to achieve 1 mark by referring to the method as being likely to yield a more representative sample. The weakest students simply defined random sample and went no further.
(e)     This question required students to draw a scatter graph to display the data. About half achieved all three marks here. Many students failed to gain full marks by inaccurate or missing labels or title. About one third of students drew an incorrect graph, the most common error being to draw a bar chart.
(f)     Most students were able to make some commentary on the generally negative correlation shown in the graph and table. Better students noted the presence of two outliers which weakened the overall strength of the relationship and some commented on the impact of outliers in a small sample. A small number of students made a rough calculation of Rs which was impressive but unnecessary to gain full marks.
(g)     This question had a range of answers from students that covered marks from 0-10. The mark scheme allowed students to argue for different ways of designing the experiment (independent measures or matched pairs) and of generating a sample (volunteer or random selection from the two groups) provided these were workable and justified. Some common errors included:
•        suggesting an inappropriate design (repeated measures) which did not take account of the information relating to left and right handers
•        suggesting a sampling method but not explaining how it would yield an appropriate sample of left and right handers
•        assuming that a maths test also needed to be completed (ie incorrect IV)
•        failing to provide any procedural information
•        producing a debrief which was not suitable to be read out to participants
•        providing standardised instructions and claiming they were a debrief.
Some schools and colleges had clearly prepared their students well and many showed an impressive understanding of experimental design. Others struggled with the question and/or, failed to read the instructions and therefore gained very few marks. Once again, advice to teachers is: to do practical work. It was clear that some students were very familiar with designing experiments and they had a strong advantage here.
(h)     This question required students to follow through their design from (g) and give some indication of how the data would be recorded and analysed. Most managed to sketch an appropriate table to record data, although a few misread the question and produced a summary table. Some students were able to follow through their design / data type with an appropriate test which could have been Mann Whitney (independent design) or Wilxocon (matched pairs). Students who had collected nominal data or recorded data in nominal form were credited if they suggested chi square to analyse it.
Q19.
This was a straightforward question for which many students gained at least one of the two marks for referring to numerical data. However, not all students provided a suitably clear example of quantitative data collected by a psychologist who studied conditioning. Those who managed to gain full marks often did so with, for example, reference to the work of Pavlov and Skinner, by referring to the amount of saliva or time taken to respond.
Q20.
Almost all students gained at least one mark. Those who gained full credit did so by appropriately referring to the nomothetic / scientific nature of the behaviourist approach and disadvantages of qualitative data. Some students gave good and relevant justifying commentary for comparisons with quantitative data collection. Students who only achieved one mark, generally did so because they gave two vague or very brief reasons or a generic evaluation of qualitative data not linked to investigations carried out by behaviourists. A minority of students gave one reason only.
Q21.
(a)     Students often struggled with this question. Very few understood why measures of dispersion are used in addition to measures of central tendency and a number used the term ‘dispersed’. Applications to the stem lacked the necessary detail to attract a mark.
(b)     Many students were able to make correct use of the table and draw an appropriate conclusion about the statistical significance of the T value. Stronger students were able to present this information well, with some even correctly stating that the results were not significant at the 0.02 level and explaining why. A few less successful students were confused about the critical and calculated values of T.
(c)     It was heartening to see so many students being able to explain why this test was used, with many students scoring the full 3 marks. A few students, however, stated that the data was nominal or interval.
(d)     Most students were able to score at least one mark on this question even if they scored poorly on preceding and subsequent questions. Students had to think carefully about this answer and many were able to suggest one or two sensible reasons for the use of a diary by each offender. Elaboration and explanation of each reason proved more of a challenge, sometimes resulting in overlap and repetition across the two reasons offered. Some students simply repeated the stem.
(e)     This question produced some answers that showed a lack of understanding of the use of a control group with quite a few students suggesting that a control group would consist of ‘a group of non-offenders’ or ‘normal people / people with no anger issues from a normal population’. More informed students were able to explain why a group of people who would not have the anger management programme would have improved the study although some simply said that ‘it would make it more scientific’ without explaining why.
(f)     Answers to this question were most disappointing with almost two fifths of students failing to score a single mark. What should have been a straightforward question proved challenging for many students who seemed unfamiliar with how to establish the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Some students confused reliability with validity, others simply provided definitions of each and, where an attempt was made to apply reliability and validity to the stem, students very often referred to pilot studies and peer review. Reliability was sometimes mistaken for replicability, the ‘split-half method’ was frequently explained as dividing the total score in half to see if the two halves correlated and test- retest was sometimes explained as testing one group of offenders and retesting another group of offenders. Face validity was rarely applied to the questionnaire ie anger scores. Even students who correctly addressed the issues of reliability and validity, failed to explain how statistical tests of correlation would be used in this context. The value of carrying out practical activities to enable students to ‘think like a psychologist’ and apply their knowledge of practical activities in answer to questions such as this one cannot be overstated. It is clear that where students had been presented with such opportunities, they were able to write confidently and in an informed manner.
Q22.
(a)     Attention was drawn to the requirement for the variables to be operationalised in this answer. Some responses met this requirement effectively, other responses were more vague. Inevitably there were some who mixed up the IV and DV.
(b)     Although almost all students recognised that the mean score for aggression was higher in those who started day care before the age of two than after the age of two, fewer students pointed to the magnitude of the difference being small.
(c)     There was a wide range of incorrect answers to this question. Clearly a number of students did not recognise the term “dispersion”.
(d)     Most students were able to draw a bar chart. Those who drew separated bars to represent those who started day care before or after the age of two created a better visual impact than those who chose to join the two bars. Students who did not score full marks usually failed to label the axes fully eg labelled the ‘yߣ axis as mean score, rather than mean aggression score.
(e)     In a majority of responses, hypotheses were both appropriate and directional. Some students failed to operationalise part of the hypothesis and so did not score full marks. A few responses were written in the form of a correlational hypothesis, which was not appropriate.
Q23.
Students seem to struggle with the interpretation of graphs and many do not seem to understand the difference between what data show ie findings and what can be concluded from the data. The graph shows a negative correlation, which is moderate-strong; this shows that the more weeks of treatment the lower the depression score. Students could also comment on the apparent “plateau” or change in direction in the middle of treatment. Very few students considered the strength of the relationship and weaker students just read the data off the graph.
Q24.
(a)     Students found this question very difficult. Many of the answers given were untestable statements because they did not contain two conditions and / or the DV was not operational. Answers were often in the following format – There will be a better performance in the audience condition.
(b)     The majority of students were able to describe the pattern of the results but failed to use this as an explanation for the conclusion that could be drawn – the presence of an audience affected / increased the number of accurate shots through the hoop.
(c)     Titles for the graph were generally good. The y axis sometimes did not contain reference to ‘mean’ number of successful shots. Plotting was accurate. Many students were able to present clear and accurate graphical displays.
(d)     Students needed to be very clear about the strength and then explain why that was a strength of random sampling. Many students merely wrote a definition of random sampling.
(e)     (i)      Although students were able to identify a limitation of using independent groups – such as there are participant variables, rather than explaining why this is a limitation, they then went on to describe what is meant by participant variables.
(ii)     Answers to this question often lacked information about overcoming the limitation.
Students could suggest that using matched pairs or repeated measures might be appropriate, but could not expand on what a researcher would actually do.
(f)      (i)      This was not well answered. There were many very vague definitions of extraneous variables such as, something that cannot be controlled / something that has to be controlled.
(ii)     This was quite well answered although only a few students referred to ’confounding’ in their answer.
(g)    This question required students to imagine themselves as the researcher about to read out to participants in the ‘audience’ condition the instructions for participation.
Some students produced very clear information in verbatim form. There were some students who focussed only on ethical issues.
Q25.
(a)     Many candidates produced an operationalised directional hypothesis. Sometimes the dependent variable in the hypothesis was not operationalised, resulting in less than full marks.
(b)     Most responses were appropriate with candidates showing a good understanding of independent groups design.
(c)     Strength: many responses focused appropriately on the absence of different types of order effects or the limitation of demand characteristics relative to a repeated measures design. Answers which elaborated a relevant strength gained full marks.
Limitation: Good answers often referred to examples of individual differences between the groups affecting reliability. Appropriate elaboration was often evident.
Lack of clarity of expression sometimes obscured the point being made.
(d)     A substantial number of candidates were able to explain the purpose of a pilot study, usually focusing on usefulness for checking and amending aspects of the procedure before the main study. The opportunity to observe and address unexpected ethical issues was also a creditworthy point. Candidates were particularly successful when they used an example to illustrate their answer for example to check the clarity of the pictures. Answers which merely outlined what a pilot study is were not credited.
(e)     Responses to this question divided clearly between those who understood and could apply the concept of standard deviation and those who did not understand the concept and hence could not interpret the numbers in the table. A common wrong answer was to claim that the memory improvement group did ‘better’, presumably because 2.8 is higher than 0.29.
Q26.
(b)    Candidates were required to identify and elaborate an appropriate methodology for measuring aggression. Many were able to do this.
Unethical answers such as ‘provoke the children and observe their response’, did not gain credit.
(c)     By identifying the lack of causal inference in correlation and suggesting other relevant factors which may affect children’s aggression, some candidates obtained full marks. Another appropriate route was to provide evidence from research to create a counterclaim. Trying to answer by using the scattergram was not a successful strategy as the question asks about causal inference and graph shows only the relationship between factors.
Q27.
It was encouraging to see that this cohort of candidates was able to go beyond simply describing the findings. They were able to make suggestions about what they showed. For example, that both therapies showed some improvement, as there were no scores of zero; that in fact neither showed much improvement as the average was only 6.
However, it was also clear from the responses that a minority of candidates had no real understanding of what range tells us about data.
Q28.
(a)     Hypothesis writing is still a problematic area for many candidates – despite the requirement to do this at AS level. Many candidates achieved zero marks on part (a), having mistakenly written a directional or a null hypothesis. Many responses were lacking in clarity or failed to include an operationalised DV so only achieved 1 mark. The best answers were concisely and clearly worded responses such as “There will be an association between birth order and career choice”, which achieved the full 2 marks.
(b)     Virtually all candidates identified an appropriate sampling technique. However, a large number did not score full marks because their account of how to obtain the sample was confused or insufficiently linked to the study in question on artists and lawyers. Candidates who chose a random sample needed to explain how the target population would be identified.
(c)     Some centres had clearly prepared their candidates very well and many showed an impressive understanding of inferential statistics scoring 11 or 12 marks. However, other candidates struggled with the question and collected very few marks. Some of the most common errors were as follows.
A number of candidates did not know how to express the statistical conclusion of a research study, by referring to observed and critical values and probability. There were errors in correctly identifying the observed and critical values and their relationship to the hypothesis. A large number of candidates did not label the axes of the graph or only showed data relating to first born career choices.
Some candidates chose the wrong statistical test; some did choose the correct statistical test but did not then state the reasons why the test was appropriate.
Yet again, advice to teachers is to do some practical work. It was clear that some candidates were very familiar with the rationale for selecting a test and deciding if an observed value is significant or not. These candidates had a strong advantage on part (c).
Q29.
(a)     Most candidates accurately reported independent groups / measures, unrelated or between subjects / groups design. Candidates seemed better prepared to identify the experimental design than in previous examination series, although there were some who incorrectly identified the type of experiment (eg laboratory experiment).
(b)     If candidates got (a) wrong (laboratory experiment) then their limitation was usually wrong, so there were some incorrect references to low ecological validity. When candidates selected a correct limitation eg participant variables they did not always elaborate it well enough for two marks. Examples of individual differences were most plausible when they focussed on an appropriate characteristic for this study eg memory differences.
(c)     Candidates who looked at the results on the graph and commented appropriately on the pattern of correct and incorrect statements, scored full marks. It is advisable for candidates to read the labels on the axes of a graph. A number of candidates failed to do this and so reported inaccurately on the average number of participants who had made statements.
(d)     Answers generally showed good understanding of the cognitive interview approach. Candidates who just named a process, eg report everything, did not score full marks. Some elaboration or application to the stem was necessary to obtain a second mark.
(e)     Responses to the term investigator effects were varied. A few candidates wrote excellent responses identifying cues the investigator might produce in the context of the study, which might lead to the investigator’s expectations being fulfilled. Quite a number of candidates inappropriately discussed leading questions and often cited Loftus’s work.
Q30.
Drawing conclusions from data seems to be a topic that candidates find hard. Perhaps teachers might emphasise the difference between a conclusion and a finding (although findings can be used to support a conclusion). Also they need to highlight to candidates that these types of questions are straightforward and are not trying to trick them. Often very able candidates seemed to think that they had to go beyond the data and make links to theory etc.
Q31.
(a)     It was disappointing to see such poor understanding of how to write a non-directional hypothesis for an experiment. Common pitfalls were to write a directional hypothesis, a null hypothesis or a correlational hypothesis. Some candidates did not appear to understand the conventions of hypothesis writing at all and simply wrote a statement such as: ‘They wanted to test memory span’ or ‘The capacity of STM is 7+ or – 2’.
(b)     Some candidates clearly understood why the researchers had chosen an independent groups design and were able to offer a full answer worth 2 marks. However, this question was not answered well by many candidates. Candidates needed to apply their knowledge to answer this question but, unfortunately, many candidates simply gave a rote–learned advantage of an independent design without thinking about the context of this particular experiment where the problem of order effects or demand characteristics did not apply.
(c)     Another straightforward question generally answered correctly.
(d)     There were some full-mark answers where candidates demonstrated good understanding and were able to comment on several aspects of the graph. However, many candidates were only able to make a single point ie that adults generally had better recall than children and then ‘padded out’ their answer with repetition of the same point. A common pitfall was for candidates to state that 6 was the maximum number of digits recalled by children (or 7 by adults) instead of realising that this was the modal score. This was surprising as they had often successfully identified the modes in (c). Few candidates seemed to understand how to measure the range by looking at the information on the graph. It appears that candidates could benefit from more practical experience of interpreting graphs
(e)     Most candidates answered this well and were able to refer to earlier research by Miller or Jacobs which had demonstrated the limited capacity of STM (ie 7+/– 2 items or a range between 5 and 9 items). A minority confused capacity with duration and tried to answer in terms of the Peterson and Peterson study.
Q32.
(a)     This question proved to be a good discriminator. Candidates who understood scattergrams were able to make a reasonable sketch with appropriate labels and accurately plotted data and so gained full marks. However, a disappointingly large number of candidates clearly had no understanding of scattergrams and drew a frequency polygon instead for which they could gain no marks. The requirement to present and understand graphs is clearly stated on the AS specification: ‘presentation and interpretation of quantitative data including graphs, scattergrams and tables.’
(b)     Some candidates gave full answers in which they made good use of the data contained in the table. However, fewer candidates were able to make use of the information in the scattergram and very few referred to correlation. There were 4 marks available for this question which should have made candidates realise that some detail was required. Answers such as ‘she was concerned because the observers gave different ratings’ could not gain much credit. Quite a few candidates wasted time by defining inter-rater reliability. Answered included suggestions of how to improve reliability which, of course, was addressed in part (d).
(c)     Relatively few candidates identified an appropriate test - almost every reasonably familiar test was quoted. Experimental designs were often quoted as incorrect reasons for test selection. Many candidates did not even suggest an inferential test but suggested calculating the range, mean or standard deviation. Candidates who did identify the appropriate test were usually also able to offer an appropriate justification.
(d)     This was a good discriminator. Most candidates could offer at least one solution to this issue but many stopped after making their initial point eg ‘give them more training’. Some were able to elaborate on this effectively to gain full marks but many showed little understanding. Very common errors were ‘get more observers’ or ‘average the results’ or ‘only use one observer’.
Q33.
Most candidates offered accurate and detailed answers for this question.
Q34.
This question required candidates to draw conclusions from data, but many could not help going beyond the graph and interpreting the findings in terms of conformity research (Asch, NSI, ISI etc). The question did not require an explanation, but only what the chart showed. Many candidates did not gain many marks because they adopted the wrong approach.
Q35.
Perhaps surprisingly, many candidates achieved higher marks for this section than for their other two questions. Most candidates attempted all parts of the question although a significant minority did not complete part (h) suggesting that they might have run out of time. This was a pity since this part carried 10 marks.
(a)     This was a straightforward question and many candidates accessed full marks but a surprising number were confused by median and range and some did not understand what the range indicated about the data.
(b)     Many candidates were very well prepared and got full marks here but some wrote very confused answers showing little understanding eg ‘Spearman’s Rho because it was nominal data and repeated measures’.
(c)     There was a centre effect here. Some candidates had a good understanding of Type 1 error while others had clearly never heard of it. Some understood what is meant by the term and offered a definition but were not able to apply their knowledge to answer the question.
(d)     Candidates offered a wide range of answers, although some were a little bit too brief or poorly explained to get both marks. There was some confusion about what is meant by a placebo and some candidates offered two explanations which were essentially the same as one another. Other candidates offered factors which could apply equally to the treatment and non-treatment group. It is important in this kind of question to read the stem carefully. Some candidates said that the therapists might have been biased in favour of the treatment group, but the stem clearly states that the therapist did not know who had been in which group.
(e)     A lot of candidates missed the point that the advantage / disadvantage needed to be in comparison to interviews. Many candidates gave advantages/disadvantages that could apply equally well to both self-reports and interviews. This was acceptable only if the candidate made it clear ie ‘People are less honest in a questionnaire’ was not credit-worthy because it could apply to both interviews and questionnaires. However, ‘People are less honest in a questionnaire because they are anonymous and feel they can lie about themselves without being found out. In an interview where they are face-to-face with the interviewer, they might find it more difficult to lie’.
(f)     Some candidates wrote excellent consent forms containing both ethical and procedural information and expressed them in appropriate language. Some candidates had a very vague understanding of what needed to be included here, either only focusing on all the ethical issues (you will have the right to withdraw your data, yourself etc) with no mention of the procedures, or vice versa. Many adopted a rather inappropriate tone eg ‘Once you have signed this form, you are committed to being in the study' or ‘You have to subject yourself to an interview’. It was surprising to see that a few candidates seemed to think a consent form acted as some kind of legal disclaimer – ‘you may suffer harm but if you sign this you can’t sue us.’
It was notable on this question that candidates who were able to express themselves clearly and succinctly were much more likely to access full marks. Many answers were so poorly constructed that the content was difficult to understand. Many switched confusingly between pronouns eg They will have to have an interview. You can withdraw at any time. I agree to be part of this study.
(g)     There were some very muddled answers to this question. Candidates often didn’t read the question carefully, and wrote something like ‘Reliability means if you do the study again you will get similar results’ for their definition and then didn’t know what to write for the next part of the question. Those candidates who explained it in terms of inter-rater reliability generally gained full marks. Some candidates did not read the question carefully and did not relate their answer to checking the scores in this particular study. Many candidates thought incorrectly that test-retest involved using different participants. Some candidates suggested split-half methods indicating a lack of thought about the question. Some candidates confused reliability with validity.
(h)     Many candidates showed limited awareness of a conventional reporting style. While it was not necessary to divide the method section into sub-sections, this strategy might have helped candidates to include all the relevant details. Weaker answers made no mention of gender or eating disorders and simply repeated details from the stimulus material. Many candidates completely lost sight of the fact that gender differences were being investigated and suggested randomly allocating participants to groups. A lot of time was wasted in including aims / hypotheses and statistical analyses which do not form part of a method section. Better answers included appropriate detail of IV, DV, design, sampling method, materials / equipment and procedure which would have enabled replication to take place. As in (f), poor expression and grammatical errors often obscured meaning.