2024 May/June · Paper 12 · Q65 marksPozzulo et al. (line-ups)
2024 May/June · Paper 12 · Q1010 marksBaron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
2023
2023 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q1 (a, b)3 marksBaron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
2023 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q6 (a, b)6 marksAndrade (doodling) · Assumptions of the approach
2023 May/June · Paper 12 · Q2 (a, b)3 marksBaron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
2023 May/June · Paper 12 · Q55 marksLaney et al. (false memory)
2023 May/June · Paper 12 · Q1010 marksAndrade (doodling)
2022
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q3 (a, b)5 marksBaron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q4 (a, b)6 marksLaney et al. (false memory)
2022 Oct/Nov · Paper 12 · Q9 (a)4 marksAndrade (doodling)
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q74 marksLaney et al. (false memory)
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.
Q1Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Describe the materials used in the Revised Eyes Test.[3]
Show answer
(a) 36 black-and-white photographs of the eye region of different actors' and actresses' faces, taken from magazines. Each photo was surrounded by four words describing mental states: one target word and three foils. A glossary defined every word.
1 mark each for any three of: 36 photographs; eye region only; black and white; from magazines; four words per photo (one target, three foils); foils of the same emotional valence as the target; glossary of word meanings; similar numbers of male and female faces.
Q2Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Identify the four groups of participants in Baron-Cohen et al.'s study.[4]
Show answer
(a) Group 1: 15 adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism; Group 2: 122 adults from the general population; Group 3: 103 students at Cambridge University; Group 4: 14 adults from the general population, matched on IQ with Group 1.
1 mark for each group. Numbers not required but credit them as detail.
Q3Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)State what is meant by 'theory of mind'.[1]
(b)Outline one way the findings of Baron-Cohen et al.'s study could be used in everyday life.[2]
Show answer
(a) The ability to attribute mental states (beliefs, intentions, emotions) to oneself and to other people, and to understand that others' mental states can differ from one's own.
B1 for the ability to understand/attribute mental states to others.
(b) The Eyes Test could be used as part of an assessment to help identify adults who may have subtle difficulties understanding others' feelings, so they can be offered support or social skills training.
1 mark: application. 1 mark: explained, ethical and linked to the study (subtle deficits, adults, eyes).
Q4Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)The mean Eyes Test scores (out of 36) were: Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism group 21.9, general population 26.2, students 28.0, IQ-matched group 30.9. Calculate the difference between the mean of the Asperger/autism group and the mean of the IQ-matched group.[1]
(b)Express the Asperger/autism group's mean as a percentage of the maximum score. Give your answer to 1 decimal place.[1]
(c)Explain what these results suggest about theory of mind in adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism.[2]
Show answer
(a) 9.0
30.9 − 21.9 = 9.0
(b) 60.8%
21.9 ÷ 36 × 100 = 60.83… → 60.8%
(c) They scored lowest of all groups, even below people of the same IQ, which suggests adults with AS/HFA have a specific difficulty in attributing mental states to others from the eyes (a subtle theory of mind deficit), not just lower general intelligence.
1 mark: AS/HFA group lowest, including below IQ-matched group. 1 mark: conclusion – subtle theory of mind deficit that is not explained by IQ.
Q5Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline two problems with the original Eyes Test that Baron-Cohen et al. tried to solve in the revised version.[4]
Show answer
(a) The original had only two answer choices, so participants could score 50% by guessing and many people scored near the top (ceiling effect); the revised test used four choices. The original had only 25 items, giving a narrow range of scores; the revised test had 36. (Also: original foils were often the semantic opposite of the target, making it too easy; some items could be solved by basic emotions or gaze direction; there were more female faces.)
2 marks per problem: 1 for the problem in the original, 1 for how the revision fixed it. Problems: two-choice forced format/guessing; ceiling effect; too few items (25 → 36); foils were opposites (→ same emotional valence); basic emotions/gaze direction cues; unequal male/female faces; no glossary (→ glossary added).
Q6Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain why participants in Baron-Cohen et al.'s study also completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire.[2]
(b)State the direction of the correlation found between AQ scores and Eyes Test scores.[1]
Show answer
(a) To measure autistic traits in all participants, so the researchers could test whether scores on the Eyes Test were related (negatively correlated) to the number of autistic traits a person has.
1 mark: AQ measures autistic traits/self-reported characteristics. 1 mark: to test the correlation with Eyes Test scores (prediction of a negative correlation).
(b) Negative – the higher the AQ score, the lower the Eyes Test score.
B1: negative correlation (with explanation of meaning).
Q7Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one strength of the sampling of the Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism group in Baron-Cohen et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Explain one weakness of this group's sample.[2]
Show answer
(a) All had a clinical diagnosis of AS or HFA, so the researchers could be confident the group really had the condition being studied, which increases the validity of comparisons with the other groups.
1 mark: identified strength (diagnosed by clinicians / matched on IQ with Group 4). 1 mark: explained in context.
(b) There were only 15 participants, all of them men, so the results may not represent all adults with AS/HFA, e.g. women, reducing generalisability.
1 mark: weakness (small, 15 people; all male; volunteers). 1 mark: consequence for generalisability.
Q8Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Two friends are arguing about the validity of the Revised Eyes Test. Bilal says it is a valid measure of theory of mind; Sana says it is not. Explain one argument for each friend.[4]
Show answer
(a) Bilal: the test was carefully developed – target words were checked by judges, foils had the same emotional valence, a glossary removed vocabulary problems – and people with AS/HFA scored lower, as predicted, so it seems to measure the ability to read mental states. Sana: the photographs are static, black-and-white images of eyes only, whereas in real life we judge mental states from whole faces, voices, movement and context, so the test may not measure everyday theory of mind (low ecological/construct validity).
2 marks for Bilal (point + link to the test's design or results). 2 marks for Sana (point + link, e.g. static images, eyes only, no context, adults only).
Q9Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Baron-Cohen et al.'s study in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of quantitative data.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: quantitative data (scores out of 36, AQ scores) allowed objective comparison of the four groups and correlation with AQ; standardised procedure (same 36 photos, same instructions, glossary) increased reliability; inclusion of control groups (general population, students, IQ-matched) meant differences could be attributed to AS/HFA rather than IQ. Weaknesses: quantitative scores do not show why a participant chose a word or how they reasoned – no qualitative insight; low ecological validity – static photos of eyes only; small, mainly male AS/HFA group limits generalisability; the student group was not representative of the general population.
Level 4 (8–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, each developed with examples from the study, quantitative data point discussed in detail, balanced. Level 3 (5–7): four points with some explanation including quantitative data, or three detailed points. Level 2 (3–4): limited explanation/links. Level 1 (1–2): brief generic points.
Q10Andrade (doodling) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Describe what the participants in the doodling condition were asked to do in Andrade's study.[3]
Show answer
(a) While listening to a monotonous 2½-minute mock telephone message about a party, they shaded in printed squares and circles on a sheet of paper. They were told that speed and neatness did not matter. They also had to write down the names of people who would be coming to the party.
1 mark each for any three of: shade printed shapes (squares and circles); while listening to the recording; told neatness/speed unimportant; write down names of party guests (monitoring task); same message as control group.
Q11Andrade (doodling) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Identify the independent variable and one dependent variable in Andrade's study.[2]
(b)Name the experimental design used.[1]
Show answer
(a) IV: whether or not participants doodled (doodling group vs control group). DV: number of names correctly monitored (written down) OR number of names and places recalled in the surprise memory test.
1 mark IV; 1 mark DV.
(b) Independent measures design.
B1.
Q12Andrade (doodling) · Core · Paper 1 style · 2 marks
(a)Andrade asked participants to write down the names of people coming to the party while they listened. Explain why this 'monitoring' task was included.[2]
Show answer
(a) It gave a direct measure of attention during the call (how many target names were correctly detected), separate from the later memory test, so Andrade could see whether doodling affected concentration as well as recall.
1 mark: measures attention/concentration during the task. 1 mark: allows comparison with recall / shows if doodlers were paying attention.
Q13Andrade (doodling) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)In a surprise memory test the doodling group recalled a mean of 7.5 items and the control group recalled a mean of 5.8 items. Calculate the percentage by which the doodling group's mean recall was higher than the control group's. Give your answer to the nearest whole number.[2]
(b)Explain why the memory test was a surprise.[2]
Show answer
(a) 29%
M1: (7.5 − 5.8) ÷ 5.8 × 100. A1: 29.3… → 29%.
(b) If participants had known they would be tested, they might have tried to rehearse the information, and the control group might have rehearsed more than the doodlers; a surprise test means recall reflects attention during the call rather than deliberate memorising.
1 mark: prevents deliberate rehearsal/memorising strategies. 1 mark: so the DV measures attention/incidental learning, increasing validity.
Q14Andrade (doodling) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline the conclusion of Andrade's study.[2]
(b)Explain why the participants were tested after they had already taken part in another study.[2]
Show answer
(a) Doodling while doing a boring task improves concentration and memory, perhaps because it reduces daydreaming, which would otherwise use up cognitive resources.
1 mark: doodling aids attention/recall. 1 mark: explanation – reduces daydreaming / keeps arousal at a suitable level.
(b) Andrade wanted them to feel slightly bored or tired, so that the task would encourage daydreaming; this made it more likely that any benefit of doodling (reducing daydreaming) could show up.
1 mark: to make them bored/increase likelihood of daydreaming. 1 mark: needed to test the idea that doodling reduces daydreaming.
Q15Andrade (doodling) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Describe the sample in Andrade's study.[2]
(b)Explain one reason why this sample may limit the generalisability of the findings.[2]
Show answer
(a) 40 adults aged 18–55 from the participant panel of a research unit in Cambridge (UK), who were paid for taking part; 20 were allocated to each condition.
1 mark each for any two of: 40 participants; aged 18–55; from a Cambridge research unit's participant panel / volunteers; paid; 20 per condition.
(b) The participants were volunteers on a research panel who regularly take part in studies, and were all from one place in the UK, so people from other cultures or those unused to psychology tasks may respond differently to doodling.
1 mark: feature of sample. 1 mark: why it limits generalisation.
Q16Andrade (doodling) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how Andrade controlled extraneous variables in her study. Refer to two controls.[4]
Show answer
(a) All participants heard the same recorded message read in the same monotonous voice at the same volume, so differences in recall could not be due to the message. Both groups were given the same instructions to write down names of people coming to the party, and were tested in the same conditions after another study, so tiredness/boredom was similar in both groups.
2 marks per control: 1 for identifying it, 1 for explaining why it matters. Controls: same recording/standardised message; same monitoring instructions; same pre-test conditions (after another study); doodle sheet the same for all; same surprise recall test; random allocation to conditions.
Q17Andrade (doodling) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Andrade's study in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ecological validity.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: high control (same recording, instructions, conditions) allowed a cause–effect link between doodling and recall; quantitative data (names monitored, items recalled) allowed objective comparison; the task resembled an everyday situation (listening to a phone message), giving some ecological validity. Weaknesses: ecological validity is limited – doodling was imposed (shading shapes) rather than spontaneous, and people do not usually doodle on demand in a lab; independent measures design means participant variables (e.g. memory ability) might explain differences; sample of panel volunteers limits generalisability; mild deception about the memory test.
Level 4 (8–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, each developed and linked to the study, ecological validity discussed in detail. Level 3 (5–7): four points with some explanation including ecological validity. Level 2 (3–4): limited explanation. Level 1 (1–2): brief generic points.
Q18Andrade (doodling) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Mr Qureshi teaches a two-hour evening lecture in Karachi and notices that some students doodle in their notebooks. Using Andrade's study, suggest advice he could give his students.[3]
Show answer
(a) He could tell students that simple doodling (such as shading shapes) during long, dull parts of the lecture is acceptable and may help them pay attention and remember more, because Andrade found doodlers recalled about 29% more than non-doodlers. He should advise that the doodling be simple so it does not distract from listening.
1 mark: advice allowing/encouraging simple doodling in boring tasks. 1 mark: link to findings (better recall / 29% more). 1 mark: explanation – reduces daydreaming, or caution that doodling must be simple and low demand.
Q19Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain the difference between a target-present line-up and a target-absent line-up.[2]
(b)State what is meant by a 'false positive' identification.[1]
Show answer
(a) In a target-present line-up the person (or character) the witness saw is included among the faces; in a target-absent line-up the person seen is not included, so the correct response is to reject the line-up.
1 mark each.
(b) Choosing someone from a target-absent line-up, i.e. identifying an innocent person (foil) as the target.
B1.
Q20Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Pozzulo et al. compared young children with adults. Outline one finding about children's line-up identifications.[2]
(b)Explain one way this finding could be applied by police in Pakistan when a child is a witness.[2]
Show answer
(a) Children were less likely than adults to correctly reject a target-absent line-up – they made more false positive identifications, choosing a face even though the target was not there.
1 mark: children made more false positives / fewer correct rejections. 1 mark: comparison with adults and reference to target-absent line-ups.
(b) Police should warn the child clearly that the culprit may not be in the line-up and that saying 'not there' is a good answer, or use procedures that reduce pressure to choose, so that innocent suspects are less likely to be wrongly identified.
Q21Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 2 marks
(a)Pozzulo et al. used both cartoon characters and human faces as targets. Suggest one reason why cartoon characters were included.[2]
Show answer
(a) Young children are familiar with cartoon characters and find them interesting, so including them allowed the researchers to see whether children's poor performance was due to unfamiliar human faces or to the line-up task itself.
1 mark: cartoons are familiar/engaging for young children. 1 mark: allows comparison to see whether target type affects children's accuracy.
Q22Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Researchers have suggested that children's false positive responding might have a cognitive explanation or a social explanation. Explain the difference between these two explanations.[4]
Show answer
(a) Cognitive: the child's errors come from limits in mental processing – e.g. a weaker memory for the face, or difficulty comparing the faces with the memory and deciding that none matches. Social: the child may know the target is not there but chooses anyway because they feel pressure to give an answer to an adult, believe the adult expects them to pick someone, or want to be helpful.
2 marks cognitive (memory/recognition/decision-making limitation + elaboration). 2 marks social (pressure/compliance/expectation of adult + elaboration).
Q23Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Pozzulo et al.'s study in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of children as participants.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: comparing children with adults under the same controlled procedure allowed clear conclusions about age differences; quantitative data (correct identifications, false positives) were objective and easy to compare; the findings have useful applications to police line-up procedures. Use of children: findings are directly relevant to child witnesses, but children may misunderstand instructions or feel pressure, need parental consent, and must be protected from distress. Weaknesses: low ecological validity – seeing a target in a study is not the same as witnessing a real crime with stress and consequences; children's responses may be affected by demand characteristics; ethical issues with children.
Level 4 (8–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, developed with examples from the study, the children issue discussed fully. Level 3 (5–7): four points with some explanation, including children. Level 2 (3–4): limited explanation. Level 1 (1–2): brief generic points.
Q24Laney et al. (false memory) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
Older-syllabus study: Laney et al. was a core study up to 2023 and is not on the 2024 onward syllabus. Use this question with older past papers.
(a)Outline the false feedback given to participants in the 'love' group in Laney et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Name one questionnaire used to measure the participants' attitudes towards asparagus.[1]
Show answer
(a) They were told that a computer analysis of their earlier questionnaire answers showed that, as a child, they had loved asparagus the first time they tried it.
1 mark: told the results came from a computer profile of their questionnaire answers. 1 mark: content – they loved asparagus the first time they tried cooked asparagus as a child.
(b) Any one of: Food History Inventory; Food Preferences Questionnaire; Restaurant Questionnaire; Food Costs Questionnaire; Memory of Experience Questionnaire.
B1.
Q25Laney et al. (false memory) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
Older-syllabus study: Laney et al. was a core study up to 2023 and is not on the 2024 onward syllabus. Use this question with older past papers.
(a)Explain why Laney et al. included filler items about other foods in their questionnaires.[2]
(b)Explain one way in which Laney et al.'s study broke the guideline on deception, and why this could be justified.[2]
Show answer
(a) To hide the real aim (asparagus) from participants, reducing demand characteristics so they would not guess what the study was about and change their answers.
1 mark: to disguise the aim / mask the target item. 1 mark: reduces demand characteristics, increasing validity.
(b) Participants were deliberately told a false 'fact' about their childhood. This could be justified because the false memory was positive (loving a healthy vegetable), was unlikely to cause harm, and the study could not be done without deception; participants were fully debriefed afterwards.
Q26Laney et al. (false memory) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
Older-syllabus study: Laney et al. was a core study up to 2023 and is not on the 2024 onward syllabus. Use this question with older past papers.
(a)Describe the difference between 'believers' and 'non-believers' in Laney et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Outline one result about the believers.[2]
Show answer
(a) In the love group, believers were participants who came to believe/remember that they had loved asparagus as a child, after the false feedback; non-believers received the same feedback but did not come to believe it.
1 mark for each group defined.
(b) Believers showed increased liking for asparagus and were more willing to eat it in a restaurant, and were willing to pay more for it in a shop, than controls.
1 mark: identified result (liking, intention to eat, willingness to pay). 1 mark: comparison with control/non-believers.
Q27Laney et al. (false memory) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
Older-syllabus study: Laney et al. was a core study up to 2023 and is not on the 2024 onward syllabus. Use this question with older past papers.
(a)Ms Rizvi runs a school canteen in Islamabad and wants children to eat more spinach. Explain whether it would be ethical to use the findings of Laney et al.'s study to help her.[4]
Show answer
(a) Deliberately planting false memories in children would be unethical: they cannot give fully informed consent, it involves deceiving them about their own past, and parents would need to agree. A more ethical application would be to use the idea that positive memories increase liking, e.g. by creating genuinely positive experiences with spinach (tasting days, praise) without deception.
1 mark: link to the study (false positive memories increased liking/eating). 1 mark: ethical problem – deception/consent. 1 mark: extra issue with children (parental consent, vulnerability). 1 mark: suggestion of an ethical alternative or reasoned conclusion.
Q28Laney et al. (false memory) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
Older-syllabus study: Laney et al. was a core study up to 2023 and is not on the 2024 onward syllabus. Use this question with older past papers.
(a)Explain one strength and one weakness of the validity of Laney et al.'s study.[4]
Show answer
(a) Strength: the use of filler items and a cover story ('food preferences and personality') reduced demand characteristics, so changes in liking are more likely to reflect a real effect of the false memory. Weakness: willingness to eat or pay for asparagus was measured by questionnaire, not real behaviour, so participants' answers may not show what they would actually eat (low ecological validity).
2 marks for strength (point + link). 2 marks for weakness (point + link). Accept: delayed second session; self-report bias; artificial setting.
Q29Assumptions of the approach · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline one assumption of the cognitive approach in psychology.[2]
(b)Explain how Andrade's study illustrates this assumption.[2]
Show answer
(a) Cognitive processes such as perception, attention, memory and language influence behaviour, and these internal processes can be studied scientifically.
1 mark: internal mental processes influence behaviour. 1 mark: named examples or idea that differences between individuals can be explained by differences in mental processes.
(b) Doodling affected attention (reducing daydreaming), which improved the participants' memory for the phone message, showing that mental processes influence behaviour (recall).
1 mark: identifies attention/memory in the study. 1 mark: link to behaviour/assumption.
Q30Assumptions of the approach · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how both Baron-Cohen et al.'s and Pozzulo et al.'s studies support the assumption that differences between individuals can be explained in terms of differences in cognitive processes.[4]
Show answer
(a) Baron-Cohen et al.: adults with Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism scored lower on the Eyes Test than the other groups, including an IQ-matched group, so differences in social understanding can be explained by a difference in a cognitive process (theory of mind). Pozzulo et al.: children and adults differed in their line-up identifications (children made more false positives in target-absent line-ups), which can be explained by differences in memory or decision-making processes between age groups.
2 marks per study: 1 for the individual difference found, 1 for linking it to a cognitive process (memory, recognition, decision-making).
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).
Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)7 questions · 7/9 sessions
