CAIE A-Level Psychology AS 3.1 As Level Content Core Studies Questions

either Luis or Ava is correct, using evidence from this study in your answer. 1 mark for a feature of Milgram linked to someone being obedient (e.g., prods, lab coat). 1 mark per correct point made that is explicit to Milgram. e.g., Luis
One of the aims of the study was to test whether Germans were different (1 mark). Therefore, it can be used to help us understand why people do bad things such as some behaviours during the Holocaust (1 mark). As people in uniform/in authority have the power to get people to do things they would never typically do (1 mark) as in this study 65% of participants administered what would have been a
lethal electric shock to a stranger (1 mark). e.g., Ava
The study took place in a controlled environment with a set procedure which does not represent everyday life (1 mark).
Giving an electric shock to someone for not learning a word- pair has no real-world application (1 mark). There have been no real-life accounts of people having to meet a stranger,
make them learn a task that is about word-pairs and then punish them for incorrect answers (1 mark) so there is no way a task like this can then help explain a real-world event
like genocide (1 mark)
There are other creditworthy responses.

4

If both Luis and Ava feature in the answer, mark them independently and credit the highest score

For Luis

If the response is all about how military/teachers can wear uniform/dress professionally to get soldiers/students to be more obedient = 2 marks max [ can still get the feature mark].

If just a 'generic' chat about everyday obedience =1 mark [can still get the feature mark].

The idea presented needs to be more retrospective than prospective due to AOs being tested.

Go with the intention of the candidate.

Second source of data = 1st mark

How the memory score was calculated =2 nd mark 'false alarms' / errors;
(second source of data) [1st]...were taken away from the correct responses score (to give the memory score);
(how) [2nd]

2

Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, validity (internal), observations. Weaknesses include: validity (external), sample, ethics.

Example: in detail

The sample only had 34 rhesus monkeys as part of it. This could make generalisations difficult. This is because some of the troop were not used in the study as they were too young to be reliably identified and these may have played differently/chosen different toys/from a captivity troop. Therefore, the findings about monkey toy preferences may only apply to those in the sample/not apply to monkeys who live in the wild where toy choice is not available.

Example: brief but in context

The sample only had 34 rhesus monkeys as part of it. This could make generalisations difficult as they might not represent the whole troop.

Example: no context

The study followed a standardised procedure making it easier to replicate.

Mark

9-10

- Very good evaluation including the named issue.

- Thoroughly addresses both strengths and both weaknesses in detail.

- Selection of evidence is very thorough and effective.

- Good evaluation including the named issue.

- Addresses strengths and weaknesses but may include three or four points. The majority of the points are in depth.

- Selection of evidence is thorough and effective.

10

Ignore arguments about the ethics of not being in the wild. They were captive bred.

The list of ethical guidelines that are creditworthy are:

Minimising harm

Replacement

Species

Numbers

Pain/Distress

Housing

Reward/deprivation/aversive.

Ignore human ethical guidelines.

Main evidence includes:

Housing

- Size of enclosure ( $25 \times 25$ )

- Fed monkey chow every day/water present/fruit and veg available.

- Socially housed in troop.

Minimising harm/distress

- Use of video cameras.

- Familiarity with keepers in enclosure/lived in enclosure

- One monkey tore toy apart (broken)

10

Mention of knowing the
monkey's gender is tick-b only.
Observer bias - needs a
specified behaviour from the
how it could be observed with
checklist to be explained as to
bias to get tick-d, otherwise tick-
b

Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, quantitative data, follow-up

Weaknesses include: validity (external), sample, ethics

Example: in detail (named)

The study collected quantitative data which makes it easier to make meaningful comparisons over time. They looked at the change in distress ratings across different scenarios and different time points in the therapeutic process. As a result, they could compare the changes in distress ratings to make more valid conclusions about the progression of his phobia.

Example: brief but in context

The sample was only one boy with a button phobia which may make generalisation difficult. A person with a different childhood experience or a female phobic may not respond to therapy in the same way.

Example: no context

The sample was only one person making generalisations difficult.

10

10

Level guidance for Question 10

10