17 questions · about 4% of the marks we indexed · examined in 9 of 9 sessions.
Questions by year
2026
2026 May/June · Paper 12 · Q1 (a, b, c)5 marksHassett et al. (monkey toy preferences)
2026 May/June · Paper 12 · Q2 (a, b)5 marksDement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
2026 May/June · Paper 12 · Q9 (a)4 marksHölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)
2025
2025 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q5 (a, b)4 marksHölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)
2025 May/June · Paper 12 · Q43 marksHassett et al. (monkey toy preferences)
2024
2024 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q45 marksHölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)
2024 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q6 (a, b)6 marksHassett et al. (monkey toy preferences)
2024 May/June · Paper 12 · Q3 (a, b, c)6 marksDement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
2023
2023 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q9 (a)4 marksSchachter and Singer (two factors in emotion)
2023 May/June · Paper 12 · Q1 (a, b)3 marksSchachter and Singer (two factors in emotion)
2023 May/June · Paper 12 · Q3 (a, b)5 marksCanli et al. (brain scans and emotions)
2022
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q2 (a, b)4 marksDement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q5 (a, b)5 marksSchachter and Singer (two factors in emotion)
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q1010 marksCanli et al. (brain scans and emotions)
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q3 (a, b)5 marksDement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q5 (a, b)5 marksCanli et al. (brain scans and emotions)
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q8 (a)2 marksSchachter and Singer (two factors in emotion)
No questions match this filter.
References only, not question text. Open Official paper ↗ where Cambridge publishes the paper,
or see the official Cambridge past-papers page; for other papers, ask your
school. “Paper 42” means Paper 4, variant 2.
Practice questions
Original questions written by HomiLabs in the style of the exam, with answers and mark schemes. They are not
Cambridge past paper questions and have not been reviewed by Cambridge. Try each one before opening the answer.
Q1Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Core · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Describe how participants in Dement and Kleitman's study were woken during the night and how they reported their dreams.[3]
(b)Identify two things participants were asked to avoid on the day of the study, and explain why.[2]
Show answer
(a) A doorbell rang near the bed to wake the participant. The participant then spoke into a tape recorder beside the bed, saying whether they had been dreaming and, if so, describing the content of the dream. There was no direct contact with the experimenter, who later came in to ask questions if needed.
1 mark each, up to 3: doorbell used to wake; spoke into a recorder by the bed; reported whether dreaming and the dream content; no contact with the experimenter while reporting (experimenter could enter afterwards to question).
(b) They avoided caffeine (e.g. coffee) and alcohol, because these drugs affect sleep and could change the sleep stages being measured (a control for extraneous variables).
1 mark for both caffeine and alcohol; 1 mark for the reason (they affect sleep patterns / would be confounding variables).
Q2Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Ayesha tells her friend, 'I never dream. I sleep the whole night and remember nothing.' Using the findings of Dement and Kleitman, explain what her friend could tell her.[3]
Show answer
(a) Dement and Kleitman found that dreaming occurs mainly in REM sleep, which happens several times each night, and that people woken during REM usually reported dreams. People woken in NREM, or later on, rarely remembered dreams. So Ayesha probably does dream but forgets her dreams because she wakes from NREM sleep or some time after a REM period.
1 mark: dreams mainly linked to REM sleep; 1 mark: REM occurs regularly (several times) every night; 1 mark: recall is much lower when woken outside REM / dreams are forgotten, so she probably does dream.
Q3Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
A student repeats part of Dement and Kleitman's study in a sleep laboratory (hypothetical data). Participants are woken either during REM sleep or during NREM sleep and asked whether they have been dreaming.REM awakenings: 40, dream reported on 31NREM awakenings: 36, dream reported on 4
(a)Calculate the percentage of awakenings that produced a dream report in each condition. Give your answers to 1 decimal place.[2]
(b)State whether these results are consistent with Dement and Kleitman's findings. Give a reason.[1]
(c)Suggest one reason why a few dream reports were given after NREM awakenings.[1]
(b) Yes – like Dement and Kleitman, dreams were reported far more often after REM awakenings than after NREM awakenings.
1 mark: consistent, because dream recall was much higher in REM than in NREM.
(c) The participant may have been woken soon after a REM period had ended, so a recent dream could still be recalled.
1 mark: woken shortly after a REM period / dream carried over from REM; accept that some NREM mental activity may be reported as a dream.
Q4Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 6 marks
(a)Outline how the EEG was used to measure sleep in Dement and Kleitman's study.[2]
(b)Explain one strength of using the EEG as a measure in this study.[2]
(c)Explain one weakness of using the EEG as a measure in this study.[2]
Show answer
(a) Electrodes were attached to the scalp to record brain activity (to identify the stage of sleep) and near the eyes to record eye movements, so that REM and NREM sleep could be identified objectively.
1 mark: electrodes on scalp record brain waves/sleep stage; 1 mark: electrodes near the eyes record eye movements to identify REM.
(b) The EEG gives objective, quantitative data: whether a participant was in REM or NREM sleep when woken did not depend on the participant's or researcher's opinion, so the classification was reliable and could be repeated.
1 mark for identifying a strength (objective / quantitative / reliable / not open to demand characteristics); 1 mark for linking it to identifying REM vs NREM at the point of waking.
(c) Participants slept with electrodes attached in an unfamiliar laboratory, which may have changed how they slept, so sleep and dreaming may not reflect normal sleep at home (low ecological validity).
1 mark for the weakness (equipment is unnatural / uncomfortable / may disturb sleep); 1 mark for the effect on the validity of the sleep or dream data in this study.
Q5Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Describe the part of Dement and Kleitman's study that tested whether participants could judge how long they had been dreaming.[3]
(b)Suggest one reason why giving participants only two options (5 or 15 minutes) may be a weakness.[2]
Show answer
(a) Participants were woken either 5 minutes or 15 minutes after the start of a REM period. They were asked to say whether they had been dreaming for 5 or 15 minutes. Their choice was compared with the actual REM duration; they were correct most of the time, which suggests dream time is related to real time.
1 mark each, up to 3: woken after 5 or 15 min of REM; asked to choose 5 or 15 min; choice compared with actual REM time; most estimates correct / a forced choice of two options.
(b) With only two choices a participant has a 50 % chance of being right by guessing, so some correct answers may not reflect real awareness of dream length.
1 mark: guessing / 50 % chance; 1 mark: so accuracy may be overestimated / data less valid.
Q6Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 6 marks
(a)Describe how Dement and Kleitman investigated the link between the direction of eye movements in REM sleep and dream content.[3]
(b)Give one example of a dream report that matched a pattern of eye movements.[1]
(c)Explain why this part of the study gives only limited support for the idea that eye movements reflect what the dreamer is 'looking at'.[2]
Show answer
(a) Participants were woken after a clear pattern of eye movements had been recorded – mainly vertical, mainly horizontal, both, or very little movement – and asked to describe their dream. The dream content was then compared with the pattern of eye movements.
1 mark each, up to 3: EEG/EOG recorded the direction of eye movements; woken after a distinct pattern (vertical / horizontal / mixed / little movement); asked to describe dream; content compared with the pattern.
(b) Mainly vertical movements – a dream of climbing up a series of ladders and looking up and down (or: horizontal movements – watching two people throwing tomatoes at each other).
1 mark for a correct matched example (vertical: looking up/down e.g. climbing ladders, looking up at cliffs; horizontal: two people throwing tomatoes at each other).
(c) Only a small number of awakenings showed a clear single pattern and the dream report relied on self-report, which may be incomplete or influenced by what participants thought was expected; so the link is based on few, subjective cases.
1 mark: few clear-pattern awakenings / small sample; 1 mark: dream reports are subjective / could be affected by demand characteristics.
Q7Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Dement and Kleitman's study of sleep and dreams, including a discussion of ecological validity.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths could include: objective EEG measurement of REM/NREM; standardised procedure (same doorbell, recorder, instructions) giving reliability; controls such as no caffeine/alcohol; quantitative data allowing comparison of dream recall in REM vs NREM. Weaknesses could include: low ecological validity (sleeping in a laboratory with electrodes, woken repeatedly, so sleep may not be natural); small sample of nine adults limits generalisability; dream recall is self-reported and may be affected by demand characteristics; individual differences in recall.
Mark points (any 4, developed and linked to the study): ecological validity – lab setting, electrodes, being woken by a doorbell are unlike normal sleep (weakness) although participants slept at night at their normal bedtime (partial strength); EEG objective; standardisation/reliability; controls (caffeine, alcohol); quantitative data; small sample; self-report dreams subjective; ethics (sleep disturbed but participants consented). Level 4 (9–10): two developed strengths and two developed weaknesses, the named issue included, all clearly linked to the study, good range. Level 3 (6–8): evaluation is mostly developed and linked; the named issue is present. Level 2 (3–5): limited range or mostly undeveloped points; the named issue may be missing. Level 1 (1–2): brief, general or muddled points. 0: no creditworthy response.
Q8Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how Dement and Kleitman's study can be used in the debate about individual and situational explanations of behaviour.[4]
Show answer
(a) Individual explanations say behaviour comes from factors within the person (biology, personality); situational explanations say it comes from the environment. The regular REM cycles found in all participants suggest dreaming is an internal biological process (individual). However, dream recall depended on the situation – whether the person was woken during REM or NREM, and how soon – which supports a situational influence on what is reported.
1 mark: definition of individual explanation; 1 mark: definition of situational explanation; 1 mark: individual example from the study (REM cycles / biological rhythm within each person, or differences between participants in recall); 1 mark: situational example (timing of the doorbell awakening affected recall).
Q9Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain one reason why Hassett et al. studied monkeys rather than human children.[2]
(b)Suggest one reason why rhesus monkeys were a suitable species for this research.[1]
Show answer
(a) Children learn from parents, peers and the media which toys are 'for boys' or 'for girls', so their preferences may be caused by socialisation; monkeys do not experience human gender stereotypes about toys, so any sex difference is more likely to be biological.
1 mark: children are affected by gender socialisation; 1 mark: monkeys lack this, so the effect of biology can be separated.
(b) They are closely related to humans and show similar hormone-linked sex differences in behaviour (e.g. young males do more rough-and-tumble play).
1 mark: close evolutionary relatives / similar hormonal sex differences / similar sex differences in play / live in social groups.
Q10Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Identify the species of animal used by Hassett et al. in their study of toy preferences.[1]
(b)Describe the two types of toy used in the study.[2]
Show answer
(a) Rhesus monkeys.
1 mark: rhesus monkeys (accept rhesus macaques).
(b) Wheeled toys (seen as stereotypically 'masculine'), such as a wagon or a truck, and plush toys (seen as stereotypically 'feminine'), such as soft stuffed toys.
1 mark: wheeled toys with an example/description; 1 mark: plush (soft) toys with an example/description.
Q11Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one strength of observing the monkeys in their usual social group rather than alone in a cage.[2]
(b)Explain one difficulty in generalising Hassett et al.'s findings to human children.[2]
Show answer
(a) The monkeys behaved in a natural social setting with their own group, so their choice of toys is more likely to reflect normal behaviour (higher ecological validity) and they were less stressed.
1 mark: identifies natural setting/ecological validity or animal welfare; 1 mark: explanation linked to the study.
(b) Monkeys differ from humans in brain development, cognition and culture; children's toy play involves pretend play and social meaning that monkeys do not have, so the reasons behind the preferences may differ.
1 mark: species differences; 1 mark: explained with a relevant example.
Q12Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)State one result from Hassett et al.'s study.[2]
(b)State one conclusion from the study and explain how it differs from a result.[2]
Show answer
(a) Male monkeys interacted much more with wheeled toys than with plush toys, whereas female monkeys interacted with both kinds of toy and showed a much weaker preference.
1 mark: male preference for wheeled toys; 1 mark: females interacted with both / weaker or more varied preference.
(b) Conclusion: sex differences in toy preference can develop without human gender socialisation, so biological factors (e.g. hormones) may contribute to boys' and girls' toy choices. A result is what was actually measured in this group of monkeys; a conclusion is the general claim drawn from it.
1 mark: appropriate conclusion (biological/hormonal influence on sex differences in toy preference, independent of human socialisation); 1 mark: result = data found in this study, conclusion = general statement drawn from it.
Q13Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how Hassett et al.'s study supports one assumption of the biological approach.[2]
(b)Suggest one everyday application of Hassett et al.'s findings.[2]
Show answer
(a) The biological approach assumes behaviour is influenced by genes, hormones and evolution. Male rhesus monkeys, which have no human gender stereotypes, preferred wheeled toys as boys do, suggesting the sex difference has a biological (e.g. hormonal or evolutionary) basis.
1 mark: assumption (behaviour influenced by genes/hormones/evolution, shared with other species); 1 mark: link to male monkeys' preference for wheeled toys without socialisation.
(b) Parents and teachers could offer children a wide range of toys without pressure and not assume that a preference is only the result of upbringing, since some differences in preference may be partly biological.
1 mark: plausible application (parenting, education, toy design/marketing, debates on gender-neutral toys); 1 mark: justified by the finding that preferences appear without human socialisation.
Q14Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Describe the background to Hassett et al.'s study of toy preferences in monkeys.[4]
Show answer
(a) Boys and girls show clear differences in toy choice (e.g. boys choose vehicles, girls choose dolls). It is debated whether this is caused by socialisation or by biology. Girls exposed to high levels of male hormones before birth (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) tend to play more with boys' toys, suggesting a hormonal influence. An earlier study found that male vervet monkeys spent more time with 'masculine' toys and females with 'feminine' toys. Hassett et al. aimed to see whether rhesus monkeys show similar sex differences with wheeled and plush toys.
1 mark each, up to 4: sex differences in children's toy choice; nature vs socialisation debate; hormonal evidence (e.g. CAH girls prefer male-typical toys); earlier vervet monkey study found similar sex differences; aim – test whether rhesus monkeys show sex differences in preference for wheeled vs plush toys.
Q15Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Describe how the monkeys' behaviour with the toys was recorded in Hassett et al.'s study.[3]
(b)Outline one finding about the male monkeys.[1]
(c)Outline one finding about the female monkeys.[1]
Show answer
(a) A wheeled toy and a plush toy were placed together in the group's outdoor enclosure for a fixed trial period. Sessions were video-recorded and the recordings were coded for each monkey's interactions with each toy, giving the frequency and the duration of interaction.
1 mark each, up to 3: one wheeled and one plush toy presented at the same time; in the monkeys' home enclosure / social group; video-recorded; coded for frequency and duration of contact with each type of toy.
(b) Male monkeys interacted with the wheeled toys much more than with the plush toys.
1 mark: males showed a clear preference for wheeled toys.
(c) Female monkeys interacted with both types of toy and showed a much weaker (more varied) preference than the males.
1 mark: females played with both / no strong preference compared with males.
Q16Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how Hassett et al.'s study contributes to the nature versus nurture debate about sex differences in toy preferences.[4]
Show answer
(a) The nurture view says children choose sex-typed toys because of social learning, e.g. parents and media. Monkeys do not experience human gender stereotypes about trucks and dolls, yet male monkeys preferred wheeled toys, like boys do. This suggests a biological (nature) influence, such as prenatal hormones, on toy preference. However, the monkeys lived in social groups, so some learning cannot be ruled out.
1 mark: nature/nurture defined; 1 mark: monkeys lack human socialisation about toys; 1 mark: male preference for wheeled toys mirrors boys → biological factors; 1 mark: development/caveat (pattern in females less clear, or social influences in groups, or similarity to human data shows evolutionary basis).
Q17Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 8 marks
(a)Describe one similarity and one difference between Hassett et al.'s study and Hölzel et al.'s study.[8]
Show answer
(a) Similarity: both collected quantitative data – Hassett et al. recorded the frequency and duration of each monkey's interactions with wheeled and plush toys; Hölzel et al. measured grey matter concentration from MRI scans and mindfulness scores on a questionnaire – so both allowed statistical comparison between groups. Difference: Hassett et al. studied animals (rhesus monkeys) in their social group by observation, whereas Hölzel et al. studied human volunteers in an experiment with scans before and after an eight-week mindfulness course and a waiting-list control group.
Similarity (4 marks): 1 identify; 1–2 for description in each study with detail; 1 for comparison/link. Difference (4 marks): same structure. Accept other valid points: both biological approach; both compare groups (males/females; MBSR/control); animals vs humans; observation vs experiment; natural group setting vs laboratory scanner; self-report used only by Hölzel.
Q18Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Hassett et al.'s study of monkey toy preferences, including a discussion of the use of animals in psychological research.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: avoids the human gender socialisation that makes child studies hard to interpret; non-invasive observation in the monkeys' normal social groups (good welfare and ecological validity); video recording allows coding to be checked for inter-rater reliability; quantitative frequency and duration data allow comparisons between sexes. Weaknesses: generalising from monkeys to humans is limited; the classification of toys as masculine/feminine is based on human stereotypes; individual differences such as rank or age could influence access to toys; findings for females were less clear-cut.
Mark points (any 4, developed): use of animals (the named issue) – ethical (non-invasive, natural groups, welfare guidelines) and generalisation problems; ecological validity; reliability of video coding; quantitative data; confounds such as social rank; toy categories based on human views. Level 4 (9–10): two developed strengths and two developed weaknesses, the named issue included, all clearly linked to the study, good range. Level 3 (6–8): evaluation is mostly developed and linked; the named issue is present. Level 2 (3–5): limited range or mostly undeveloped points; the named issue may be missing. Level 1 (1–2): brief, general or muddled points. 0: no creditworthy response.
Q19Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Describe the participants in Hölzel et al.'s study of mindfulness and brain structure.[2]
(b)Explain one weakness of using volunteers who had chosen to take a mindfulness course.[2]
Show answer
(a) Healthy adult volunteers with no previous meditation experience who were planning to take a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) course; about 16 took the course (experimental group) and about 17 formed a waiting-list control group.
1 mark each, up to 2: healthy adults; no previous meditation experience (meditation-naive); volunteers recruited from people planning to join MBSR courses; small groups of about 16–17 each (MBSR and waiting-list control); right-handed.
(b) They were motivated and expected the course to help them, so they may have practised more and changed their lifestyle in other ways; the results may not generalise to people who are not interested in mindfulness.
1 mark: weakness (motivation/expectations, volunteer bias, not representative); 1 mark: linked to the study (e.g. may not generalise to unmotivated people, or expectations rather than mindfulness may explain changes).
Q20Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one ethical issue that the researchers had to consider when scanning participants with MRI in Hölzel et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Explain why MRI scanning is usually considered an ethically acceptable measure.[2]
Show answer
(a) Protection from harm: lying in a narrow, noisy scanner can cause anxiety (especially for people with claustrophobia), and people with metal implants could be harmed, so participants had to be screened and told they could stop the scan at any time.
1 mark: named issue (protection from harm/distress, screening for metal, right to withdraw, confidentiality of brain scans); 1 mark: linked to MRI scanning in this study.
(b) MRI is non-invasive: it uses a magnetic field and radio waves rather than radiation or surgery, so a scan before and after the course causes no lasting harm.
1 mark: non-invasive / no radiation / no injections; 1 mark: so repeated scanning carries little risk to participants.
Q21Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Name the programme that the experimental group took part in during Hölzel et al.'s study.[1]
(b)Outline what this programme involved.[3]
Show answer
(a) The Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme.
(b) An eight-week course with weekly group meetings and a one-day retreat, teaching mindfulness exercises such as body scan, sitting meditation and mindful yoga; participants were also asked to practise at home every day using audio recordings and to record their practice.
1 mark each, up to 3: eight weeks; weekly group sessions; one-day retreat; mindfulness exercises (body scan / meditation / yoga); daily home practice with recordings; logged home practice.
Q22Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Imran works in a busy call centre in Karachi and feels stressed. Using Hölzel et al.'s study, suggest advice that could be given to him.[3]
Show answer
(a) He could join an eight-week mindfulness course like MBSR, attending weekly sessions and practising at home daily (e.g. body scan or sitting meditation with an audio recording). Hölzel et al. found that this kind of programme was linked to increased grey matter in brain regions involved in learning, memory and emotion regulation, which may help him cope with stress.
1 mark: suggests a mindfulness programme/practice; 1 mark: specific details (weekly sessions, daily home practice, named exercises); 1 mark: justified by the finding about grey matter changes / emotion regulation.
Q23Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain why Hölzel et al. used participants who had no previous experience of meditation.[2]
(b)Explain one ethical reason why the control group was offered the MBSR course after the study ended.[2]
Show answer
(a) If participants had meditated before, their brains might already have been changed by meditation, so the baseline scan would not be a true starting point; using beginners means any change after eight weeks can be linked to the MBSR programme.
1 mark: earlier meditation could already have affected grey matter / acts as a confounding variable; 1 mark: so changes can be attributed to the eight-week programme.
(b) The control group had also wanted to reduce stress; offering them the course afterwards meant they were not denied a potentially beneficial programme just because they took part in the research (fair treatment / protection from harm).
1 mark: control participants should not lose out on a benefit; 1 mark: linked to fairness/protection of participants who also wanted the course.
Q24Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Hölzel et al. used the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Name two of the facets of mindfulness it measures.[2]
(b)Explain why participants in the MBSR group were asked to record how much time they spent practising at home.[2]
(c)Suggest one problem with these practice records.[1]
Show answer
(a) Any two of: observing; describing; acting with awareness; non-judging of inner experience; non-reactivity to inner experience.
1 mark each for any two correct facets.
(b) To check that they actually carried out the daily practice (the programme was followed as planned), and so the amount of practice could be related to changes in mindfulness or grey matter.
1 mark: checks adherence / that the IV was carried out; 1 mark: allows amount of practice to be compared with the outcome measures.
(c) They were self-reported, so participants may have overestimated their practice to look committed (social desirability).
1 mark: self-report inaccuracy / social desirability / forgetting.
Q25Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Explain why Hölzel et al. scanned participants' brains both before and after the programme.[2]
(b)Explain why the study included a control group who did not do the programme until later (a waiting list).[2]
(c)State one finding from Hölzel et al.'s study.[1]
Show answer
(a) To measure change in grey matter within each participant: the scan before gave a baseline, so any difference afterwards could be attributed to the eight-week programme rather than pre-existing brain differences.
1 mark: baseline / comparison within participants; 1 mark: shows the change was due to the programme (not prior differences).
(b) The control group were scanned at the same times; if their brains did not change, changes in the MBSR group could not be due to time passing or repeated scanning, strengthening the causal conclusion.
1 mark: comparison/control for time or repeated testing; 1 mark: so changes can be attributed to mindfulness.
(c) The MBSR group showed an increase in grey matter concentration in the left hippocampus (also in areas such as the posterior cingulate cortex, temporo-parietal junction and cerebellum) that was not found in the control group.
1 mark: increase in grey matter concentration in the hippocampus or another named region in the MBSR group (not in controls).
Q26Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Hölzel et al. used a self-report questionnaire measuring mindfulness alongside MRI scans. Explain one strength and one weakness of using the self-report measure.[4]
Show answer
(a) Strength: it measures participants' own experience of mindfulness (e.g. observing, acting with awareness), giving data the scan cannot provide and allowing a check that the programme actually changed mindfulness. Weakness: participants who had committed to an eight-week course might report more mindfulness to please the researchers or justify their effort (social desirability/demand characteristics).
2 marks for strength (identify + link); 2 marks for weakness (identify + link).
Q27Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Hölzel et al.'s study of mindfulness and brain scans, including a discussion of validity.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: MRI gives an objective, quantitative measure of grey matter that participants cannot fake; scans before and after plus a waiting-list control group mean changes are unlikely to be due to time or repeated scanning (internal validity); the mindfulness questionnaire showed the programme really changed mindfulness; the standardised MBSR course can be replicated. Weaknesses (validity): there was no active control group (e.g. a relaxation class), so changes could be due to expectations, social contact or general stress reduction rather than mindfulness itself; home practice was self-reported; small samples of volunteers who wanted the course limit generalisability; increased grey matter concentration does not directly show better memory or emotion regulation.
Mark points (any 4, developed and linked): validity – control group and pre/post scans (strength); no active control / expectations / social support as confounds (weakness); construct validity of the mindfulness questionnaire; self-reported practice; objective MRI; standardisation/replicability; small, motivated volunteer sample; usefulness of findings. Level 4 (9–10): two developed strengths and two developed weaknesses, the named issue included, all clearly linked to the study, good range. Level 3 (6–8): evaluation is mostly developed and linked; the named issue is present. Level 2 (3–5): limited range or mostly undeveloped points; the named issue may be missing. Level 1 (1–2): brief, general or muddled points. 0: no creditworthy response.
Q28Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 8 marks
(a)Describe one similarity and one difference between Hölzel et al.'s study and Dement and Kleitman's study.[8]
Show answer
(a) Similarity: both used a physiological measure of the brain alongside self-report – Hölzel et al. used MRI scans of grey matter together with a mindfulness questionnaire; Dement and Kleitman used the EEG (and eye-movement recordings) together with dream reports spoken into a recorder – so both combined objective and subjective data. Difference: Hölzel et al. measured brain structure (grey matter) before and after an eight-week programme and compared an experimental group with a waiting-list control group, whereas Dement and Kleitman measured brain activity during single nights in the laboratory and had no control group (participants were compared across REM and NREM awakenings).
Similarity (4 marks): 1 identify; 1–2 for description in each study with detail; 1 for comparison/link. Difference (4 marks): same structure. Accept other valid points: both small samples; both biological approach; both quantitative data; structure vs activity; longitudinal over 8 weeks vs overnight recordings; control group vs repeated measures.
Q29Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how Hölzel et al.'s findings relate to the nature versus nurture debate.[4]
Show answer
(a) Nature is the view that behaviour and brain structure are determined by inherited biology; nurture is the view that they are shaped by experience and the environment. Hölzel et al. found that eight weeks of mindfulness practice (an experience) were followed by increases in grey matter in areas such as the hippocampus, which suggests the adult brain can be changed by nurture (neuroplasticity). However, the brain is a biological organ and people may differ biologically in how much it can change, so the findings show nature and nurture interacting.
1 mark: definition of nature/nurture; 1 mark: mindfulness practice as an environmental/learning experience (nurture); 1 mark: brain structure changed (grey matter increase / neuroplasticity); 1 mark: conclusion that biology and experience interact.
Q30Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Two students disagree. Zara says Hölzel et al.'s study shows that mindfulness causes brain changes. Bilal says it cannot show this. Explain one argument for each view.[4]
Show answer
(a) Zara: the study used a longitudinal design with scans before and after and a control group; grey matter increased only in the MBSR group, so the programme was the likely cause. Bilal: participants were volunteers who wanted to reduce stress; other changes during eight weeks (e.g. reduced stress, lifestyle, expectations, group social support) could explain the grey matter difference, and the sample was small.
2 marks for Zara's argument (before/after + control group; change only in MBSR group); 2 marks for Bilal's (confounding variables such as motivation, social contact, lifestyle; small sample; volunteers).
Similar questions
Questions that test the same subtopic in different years, grouped so you can work on one skill at a time.
References only: find each question in its paper (official link where available, otherwise through your school).
Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)4 questions · 4/9 sessions
