2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q4 (b)2 marksApplication to everyday life
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q8 (b)4 marksValidity, reliability and generalisability
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q9 (b)8 marksEthics
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.
Q1Comparing core studies · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline one similarity between the samples used by Milgram (obedience) and Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans).[2]
(b)Outline one difference between the samples used in these two studies.[2]
Show answer
(a) Both samples were drawn from the USA (Americans living in or near a city), so both studied American adults.
1 mark for the similarity (e.g. both American / both adults); 1 mark for linking it to both studies (Milgram: men from the New Haven area; Piliavin: passengers on the New York subway).
(b) Milgram's 40 participants were all male volunteers who answered an advertisement; Piliavin's participants were thousands of male and female passengers who did not volunteer and did not know they were in a study.
1 mark for the difference identified (gender mix / volunteer vs unaware / sample size); 1 mark for detail from both studies.
Q2Comparing core studies · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Identify one feature that the studies by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) and Andrade (doodling) have in common.[1]
(b)Explain one difference between the participants in the two studies.[3]
Show answer
(a) Both measured memory performance (recognition/identification accuracy in Pozzulo et al.; recall of names and places in Andrade).
1 mark for any valid shared feature: both cognitive; both measured memory; both laboratory-based; both quantitative data.
(b) Pozzulo et al. tested both children and adults, so age was the independent variable and was not manipulated; Andrade tested only adults (aged 18–55), and the IV (doodling or not) was manipulated by the researcher.
1 mark for the difference identified; 1 mark for Pozzulo detail; 1 mark for Andrade detail / effect on the type of experiment.
Q3Comparing core studies · Standard · Paper 1 style · 12 marks
(a)Describe the procedure of the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans).[4]
(b)Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Hölzel et al. and the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams).[8]
Show answer
(a) Participants who joined an 8-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) course were given MRI brain scans before and after the course; a waiting-list control group was scanned at the same times without doing the course. Participants recorded their home meditation practice and completed a mindfulness questionnaire. Grey matter concentration in chosen brain areas (e.g. the hippocampus) was compared before and after.
1 mark each for up to four points: 8-week MBSR course (weekly group sessions plus daily home practice); MRI scans before and after; waiting-list control group; home practice recorded / mindfulness questionnaire; comparison of grey matter concentration in regions of interest such as the left hippocampus.
(b) Similarity: both used objective physiological measuring equipment (MRI scans in Hölzel; EEG recordings of brain waves and eye movements in Dement and Kleitman), giving quantitative data less open to bias. Difference: Hölzel et al. compared an MBSR group with a separate control group (independent measures), whereas Dement and Kleitman had no separate control group – each of the nine participants was woken in different sleep stages (repeated measures).
Similarity (4): identified 1; explained 1; example from Hölzel 1; example from Dement and Kleitman 1. Difference (4): identified 1; explained 1; example from each study 1 + 1. Other creditworthy points: both biological approach; both small samples; difference in setting (sleep laboratory overnight vs scans at a hospital/medical centre plus normal daily life).
Q4Comparing core studies · Standard · Paper 1 style · 12 marks
(a)Describe the sample used in the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test).[4]
(b)Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Baron-Cohen et al. and the study by Andrade (doodling).[8]
Show answer
(a) Several groups of adults were tested: a group of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, a large group of adults from the general population, a group of university students, and a small group of adults with Tourette syndrome. Most participants were from the UK.
1 mark for each group correctly described (AS/HFA adults; general population adults; UK university students; adults with Tourette syndrome as a comparison group); credit sample sizes if correct (15, 122, 103, 14).
(b) Similarity: both collected quantitative data from a test (number of correct answers on the 36-item Eyes Test; number of names and places recalled in Andrade), which makes comparison between groups straightforward. Difference: Andrade randomly allocated participants to a doodling or non-doodling condition (a laboratory experiment with a manipulated IV), whereas Baron-Cohen et al. compared pre-existing groups such as adults with and without Asperger syndrome (a quasi-experiment; the IV was not manipulated).
Similarity (4) and difference (4): 1 identify, 1 explain, 1 + 1 examples from each study. Accept other valid points, e.g. both cognitive approach; both done in controlled conditions; Andrade used deception (surprise memory test) whereas the Eyes Test aim was clear.
Q5Comparing core studies · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one similarity between the study by Milgram (obedience) and the study by Perry et al. (personal space) in terms of the research method.[2]
(b)Explain one difference between these two studies in terms of the type of explanation they support.[2]
Show answer
(a) Both were controlled laboratory studies with a standardised procedure, so all participants experienced the same conditions (e.g. the same prods in Milgram; the same nasal spray procedure and distance task in Perry et al.).
1 mark for the similarity; 1 mark for an example from both studies.
(b) Milgram's results support a situational explanation (obedience produced by the authority of the experimenter and the setting), whereas Perry et al. looked at a biological factor (oxytocin) and how its effect depended on an individual difference (the participant's level of empathy).
1 mark for each study's explanation, clearly contrasted.
Q6Comparing core studies · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Compare the studies by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) and Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) in terms of ecological validity.[4]
Show answer
(a) Piliavin et al. has higher ecological validity: it was a field experiment on a real New York subway train and passengers behaved naturally because they did not know they were being studied. Dement and Kleitman has lower ecological validity: participants slept in an unfamiliar laboratory, attached to electrodes, and were woken by a doorbell during the night, which is unlike normal sleep at home.
1 mark for the comparison (Piliavin higher); 1 mark Piliavin explanation; 1 mark Dement and Kleitman explanation; 1 mark for linked detail (doorbell / electrodes / avoided caffeine and alcohol vs real commuters).
Q7Comparing core studies · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 8 marks
(a)Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) and the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia).[8]
Show answer
(a) Similarity: both studied children and both explain behaviour as learned rather than innate – Bandura showed aggression is imitated from a model; Saavedra and Silverman showed a phobia (and its disgust response) can be learned and changed through conditioning-based therapy. Difference: Bandura et al. used a large sample (72 children) in a controlled laboratory experiment with groups, whereas Saavedra and Silverman was a case study of one 9-year-old boy, so it gave detailed, idiographic data that cannot be generalised in the same way.
Similarity: identified 1, explained 1, example from Bandura 1, example from Saavedra and Silverman 1. Difference: identified 1, explained 1, examples 1 + 1. Credit: method (experiment vs case study), type of learning (social learning vs classical/evaluative conditioning), data (observation counts vs self-rated distress such as a fear thermometer).
Q8Comparing core studies · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 12 marks
(a)Outline the results of the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences).[4]
(b)Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Hassett et al. and the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning).[8]
Show answer
(a) Male rhesus monkeys showed a consistent and strong preference for wheeled (masculine) toys over plush (feminine) toys. Female monkeys showed more varied preferences, interacting with both types of toy, with some preferring plush toys. The pattern was similar to the toy preferences found in human children.
1 mark per point: males preferred wheeled toys; females' preferences more variable / interacted with both; some females preferred plush; similarity to human children; conclusion credited only if linked to results.
(b) Similarity: both studied non-human animals living in a social/managed setting (rhesus monkeys at a field station; juvenile elephants in Nepal), which raises the question of how far findings generalise to humans. Difference: Hassett et al. supports a nature explanation – the monkeys showed gender-typed toy preferences without human socialisation – whereas Fagen et al. shows nurture: the elephants' new behaviours were trained using positive reinforcement with food rewards and a bridging stimulus.
Similarity 4 marks (identify, explain, two examples); difference 4 marks (identify, explain, two examples). Accept: observation of free choice (Hassett) vs training procedure (Fagen); both raise animal welfare issues handled carefully.
Q9Application to everyday life · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Ms Sana teaches at a school in Lahore. Her pupils must listen to long, dull morning announcements and forget most of them. Suggest one piece of advice Ms Sana could take from the study by Andrade (doodling).[2]
(b)Explain one reason why this advice might not work for Ms Sana's pupils.[2]
Show answer
(a) Allow pupils to doodle (e.g. shade shapes on a sheet) while listening, because in Andrade's study doodlers recalled more information from a boring message than non-doodlers.
1 mark for advice; 1 mark for the link to Andrade's finding.
(b) Andrade's participants were adults (18–55) listening to a monotonous telephone message in a quiet room; school children may find doodling distracting or turn it into drawing, so the effect may not generalise.
1 mark for the reason; 1 mark for explanation linked to Andrade's sample or task.
Q10Application to everyday life · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Mr and Mrs Qureshi let their six-year-old son watch cartoons in which characters hit each other. Using the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), explain one piece of advice you could give the parents.[3]
Show answer
(a) Limit the aggressive cartoons and choose programmes with non-aggressive role models, because Bandura et al. found that children who watched an adult model hitting a Bobo doll imitated specific aggressive acts, especially when the model was the same sex as the child.
1 mark advice; 1 mark Bandura result; 1 mark explanation of observational learning / imitation of same-sex model.
Q11Application to everyday life · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)The manager of a shopping mall in Karachi is worried that shoppers do not help people who collapse. Using the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans), suggest two ethical ways the manager could increase helping.[4]
Show answer
(a) 1) Lower the 'costs' of helping: clear signs and a help button / trained staff so shoppers know helping is quick and safe. 2) Make the person in need seem deserving and not responsible for their state (e.g. publicity showing that people who collapse are often ill, not drunk), because in Piliavin's study the ill victim with a cane was helped far more often than the drunk victim. The campaign must not deceive or frighten shoppers.
For each suggestion: 1 mark practical idea, 1 mark link to Piliavin (cost–reward model; ill victim helped more than drunk victim; helping was quicker for the cane victim). Max 2 if not ethical.
Q12Application to everyday life · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)The keepers at a wildlife park in Islamabad need their elephants to keep still while blood samples are taken. Using the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning), suggest how the keepers could train the elephants.[4]
Show answer
(a) Use positive reinforcement: reward each small step towards the target behaviour (e.g. presenting an ear or leg) with a preferred food. Pair the food with a bridging stimulus (a sound such as a whistle) so the elephant knows exactly which action earned the reward, and shape the full behaviour gradually over short daily sessions.
1 mark each: positive reinforcement with food; bridging stimulus / secondary reinforcer; shaping in small steps; link to Fagen (juvenile elephants in Nepal trained for a trunk-wash procedure using positive reinforcement instead of negative methods).
Q13Application to everyday life · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)A software company in Bengaluru wants to reduce stress among its staff. Using the study by Hölzel et al., suggest how the company could do this.[3]
(b)Explain why taking part in the course must be voluntary.[1]
Show answer
(a) Offer an 8-week mindfulness course (like MBSR) with weekly group sessions and short daily home practice, because Hölzel et al. found increases in grey matter concentration in areas such as the hippocampus, linked to learning, memory and emotion regulation, after such a course.
1 mark suggestion; 1 mark detail of programme; 1 mark link to findings.
(b) Staff must give informed consent and have the right to withdraw; forcing them would break ethical guidelines and could itself cause stress.
1 mark.
Q14Application to everyday life · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)A police officer in Faisalabad plans to ask a seven-year-old girl, who saw a theft, to pick the thief from a line-up. Using the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups), explain two pieces of advice you would give the officer.[4]
Show answer
(a) 1) Tell the child clearly that the thief may not be in the line-up and that it is fine to say 'not there', because Pozzulo et al. found children were more likely than adults to choose someone when the culprit was absent (more false identifications). 2) Treat a child's identification with caution and look for other evidence, because children's identification accuracy in target-absent line-ups was poorer than adults'. The child should be supported and not pressured.
Each advice: 1 mark for the advice, 1 mark for link to Pozzulo's finding that children made more errors than adults in target-absent line-ups.
Q15Ethics · Core · Paper 1 style · 2 marks
(a)Outline one way in which Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) protected the welfare of their animals.[2]
Show answer
(a) The monkeys lived in their normal social groups in a large outdoor enclosure at a field station and were simply offered toys to play with, so they were not isolated, deprived or harmed.
1 mark point; 1 mark detail.
Q16Ethics · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain why the study by Andrade (doodling) involved deception.[2]
(b)Explain one way this deception could be justified.[1]
Show answer
(a) Participants were not told that their memory would be tested; the recall test was a surprise so that they would not deliberately rehearse the names, which would have made the results invalid.
1 mark: memory test was a surprise / true aim hidden; 1 mark: reason (avoid rehearsal / demand characteristics).
(b) The deception was mild and unlikely to cause distress, and participants could be debriefed afterwards.
1 mark.
Q17Ethics · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain whether Milgram (obedience) followed the ethical guideline of the right to withdraw.[2]
(b)Explain whether Milgram followed the ethical guideline of debriefing.[2]
Show answer
(a) It was not fully followed: participants were told they could keep the money whatever happened, but when they tried to stop, the experimenter used verbal prods (e.g. 'You have no other choice, you must go on'), making it hard to withdraw.
1 mark decision; 1 mark evidence from the study.
(b) It was followed: after the session participants met the unharmed learner and were told the shocks were not real; they were later sent a report and a follow-up questionnaire.
1 mark decision; 1 mark evidence.
Q18Ethics · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Two students disagree. Ayesha says the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) was unethical. Hamza says it was ethical. Explain one point that supports Ayesha and one point that supports Hamza.[4]
Show answer
(a) Ayesha: passengers did not give informed consent and were deceived – they believed a real person had collapsed, which may have caused distress, and they were not debriefed. Hamza: the situation was one that could happen in everyday life, the ride lasted only a few minutes, the 'victim' was helped by the model if no one else did, and consent would have destroyed the natural behaviour being studied.
2 marks for each side: 1 for the point, 1 for linking to the study.
Q19Ethics · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one way in which the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) may have broken the ethical guideline of protection from harm.[2]
(b)Suggest one way the researchers could have reduced this risk.[2]
Show answer
(a) Children were exposed to an adult hitting a Bobo doll and were then deliberately frustrated (attractive toys taken away), which may have upset them or encouraged aggressive behaviour that lasted after the study.
1 mark point; 1 mark detail.
(b) Return the children to play with the attractive toys and a friendly adult afterwards, and explain to parents/teachers what happened so they could watch for and correct any copied aggression.
1 mark suggestion; 1 mark explanation.
Q20Ethics · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate the study by Milgram (obedience) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ethics.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths could include: high internal validity through a standardised procedure (same prods, same 15 V steps, scripted learner responses); quantitative data (65% went to 450 V) allowing clear comparison; usefulness in explaining real obedience; debriefing and follow-up questionnaire showed most participants were glad to have taken part. Weaknesses could include: ethical problems – deception about the shocks, psychological distress (sweating, nervous laughter) and pressure from prods against the right to withdraw; a sample of 40 American men only, limiting generalisability; low ecological validity of giving shocks to a stranger.
Level 4 (9–10): four developed points, each well linked to Milgram, ethics point detailed and two-sided; balanced. Level 3 (6–8): four points, mostly developed, or three well developed. Level 2 (3–5): points identified with limited development or link. Level 1 (1–2): vague or one point. Max 6 if no ethics point.
Q21Individual and situational explanations · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline what is meant by the individual versus situational explanations debate.[2]
(b)Give one example of a situational explanation and one example of an individual explanation from the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans).[2]
Show answer
(a) Whether behaviour is caused by factors within the person (personality, attitudes, biology, e.g. empathy) or by factors in the environment around them (e.g. setting, other people, rewards).
1 mark individual side; 1 mark situational side.
(b) Situational: the type of victim – the ill victim with a cane was helped more often than the drunk victim. Individual: the passenger's own race / gender – helpers were more often male, and same-race helping tended to be higher for the drunk victim.
1 mark each.
Q22Individual and situational explanations · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) can be used to support both sides of the individual versus situational debate.[4]
Show answer
(a) Situational: the elephants learned the new behaviours because of the training environment – positive reinforcement with food and a bridging stimulus changed their behaviour. Individual: the elephants did not all learn at the same speed or reach the same level, showing that differences between individual animals (e.g. temperament, motivation) also affected learning.
2 marks each side: 1 point, 1 link to the study.
Q23Individual and situational explanations · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain whether the results of Milgram's study (obedience) support a situational explanation more than an individual explanation.[4]
Show answer
(a) Mostly situational: 65% of ordinary men gave the maximum 450 V when ordered by an experimenter in a lab-coat at Yale, and all went to at least 300 V, suggesting the authority and setting rather than personality produced obedience. But 35% defied the experimenter and participants varied in the point at which they stopped and in their tension, so individual differences also mattered; the conclusion is that the situation had a strong effect but did not fully determine behaviour.
1 mark situational evidence; 1 mark explanation; 1 mark individual evidence; 1 mark reasoned conclusion.
Q24Validity, reliability and generalisability · Core · Paper 1 style · 2 marks
(a)Explain one feature of the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) that increased its reliability.[2]
Show answer
(a) A standardised procedure: every participant was attached to the same EEG equipment, woken by the same doorbell and asked to speak into a recording device, so the study could be repeated in the same way.
1 mark feature; 1 mark explanation of why that improves reliability (consistency / replicability).
Q25Validity, reliability and generalisability · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Two psychologists disagree about the validity of the Revised Eyes Test used by Baron-Cohen et al. One says it validly measures theory of mind; the other says it does not. Explain one point for each view.[4]
Show answer
(a) Valid: adults with Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism scored lower than the comparison groups, as theory predicts, and scores correlated negatively with the Autism Spectrum Quotient. Not valid: the test uses still, black-and-white photographs of the eye region only, whereas in real life people read emotions from whole moving faces, tone of voice and context, so it may lack ecological validity.
2 marks each: 1 point, 1 link to the study.
Q26Validity, reliability and generalisability · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate the study by Andrade (doodling) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about generalisability.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths: controlled procedure (same recorded monotonous message, same shading task, same recall test) gives high reliability and internal validity; quantitative recall scores allow objective comparison of doodlers and non-doodlers; useful application to classrooms and meetings. Weaknesses: generalisability – a small sample of 40 adults from one participant panel in the UK, recruited after another study, may not represent children or other cultures; the task (a boring phone message about a party) lacks ecological validity; the surprise memory test involved deception, which raises ethical issues.
Levels as for 10-mark evaluation: L4 9–10 four detailed, linked points, generalisability discussed in depth; L3 6–8; L2 3–5; L1 1–2. Max 6 without a generalisability point.
Q27Using children in research · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain one strength and one weakness of using children as participants in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression).[4]
Show answer
(a) Strength: young children (aged about 3–5) have had less exposure to social norms, so researchers could see whether aggression is learned by observation without much prior learning getting in the way. Weakness: children cannot give fully informed consent and are more vulnerable to harm, e.g. being frustrated and possibly learning aggressive acts.
2 marks each: point + link to Bandura.
Q28Using children in research · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain why the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) needed to use children as participants, and describe one ethical issue this raised.[4]
Show answer
(a) The aim was to compare children's and adults' eyewitness identification, so child participants were essential – children do act as real witnesses and their accuracy must be understood. Ethical issue: consent – children cannot give fully informed consent, so parental consent is needed as well as the child's agreement, and the procedure (seeing a staged event and a line-up) must not frighten them; they must be able to stop at any time.
2 marks reason linked to aim; 2 marks ethical issue explained with link to study.
Q29Nature versus nurture · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) supports the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate.[2]
(b)Explain how the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) supports the nurture side.[2]
Show answer
(a) Male rhesus monkeys preferred wheeled toys, like human boys, even though the monkeys had not been taught gender roles by human society; this suggests a biological (possibly hormonal) basis for gender-typed preferences.
1 mark result; 1 mark link to nature.
(b) Children who watched an aggressive model copied specific aggressive acts they had not shown before, so aggression was learned from the environment through observation.
1 mark result; 1 mark link to nurture.
Q30Nature versus nurture · Standard · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain one way in which the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) relates to the nature versus nurture debate.[3]
Show answer
(a) It supports nature: all participants showed the same regular cycles of REM and NREM sleep through the night, and dream recall was linked to REM sleep, suggesting that sleep stages and dreaming are biologically determined. However, dream content (what the person dreams about) is likely to be influenced by experience, which is nurture.
1 mark position; 1 mark evidence; 1 mark further explanation or counterpoint.
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).
