CAIE A-Level Psychology Biological approach Question Bank

From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams):

Outline one result in relation to REM sleep and dream recall.

2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison.

1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison.

e.g.,

There were more dreams recalled in REM compared to NREM sleep (2 marks).

There were more dreams recalled in REM (1 mark). There was a positive correlation between the number of words used to recall dream (in RME) and length of time in REM.

WD had the highest recall level in REM compared to the other participants/KC/DN etc. (2 marks).

There are other creditworthy responses

2

Dreams are more vivid in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark.

Most dreams occur in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark.

Dreams are more detailed in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark.

Do not credit dreams only occur in REM.

2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison.

1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison.

e.g.,

Participants were less likely to estimate 15 mins correctly compared to 5 mins correctly (2 marks).

There were 47 instances of correct estimation compared to 13 instances of incorrect estimation (2 marks).

DN only got the estimate correct 50\% of the time (1 mark).

There are other creditworthy responses.

2

Accept on 78\% of trials, Ps could estimate 15 minutes correctly = 1 mark.

Accept 'most' estimations of length were correct = 1 mark.

However, 78\% of Ps could estimate correctly is incorrect =0 marks.

Explain one weakness of this study.

1 mark for the identification of weakness.

1 mark for explaining the weakness via example from the study.

e.g.

(Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the sample size was only 5 for those studied intensively and these people may be unique (1 mark: explanation in context).

(Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark: identification) as being asked to guess how long you have been asleep for is not a typical daily behaviour (1 mark: explanation in context.

(Lacks) ecological validity (1 mark: identification).

There are other creditworthy responses, including ethics.

2

From the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences):

Outline one result in relation to the duration of play by the monkeys with the 'wheeled' toys.

2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison

e.g., (sex differences)

Males, on average, played (with wheeled toys) for longer compared to females (2 marks)

Males, on average, played (with wheeled toys) for longer (1 mark)

e.g., (species differences)

Both male monkeys and male children played with wheeled/masculine toy for the longest time (2 marks)

e.g., (toy type differences)

Males, on average, played with wheeled toys for longer compared to plush toys (2 marks)

Males, on average, played with wheeled toys for longer (1 mark)

2

Accept responses based around the standard deviation.

Comparisons can be male vs female, monkey vs child, or wheeled vs plush

Do not accept 'played more' as the Q is about duration of play and not frequency of play.

Do not accept responses about 'toy preference' as the question is about the duration of play.

Outline one result in relation to the rank of female monkeys and the duration of play.

2 marks for the result with a meaningful correlation/comparison 1 mark for result with no meaningful correlation/comparison

e.g.,

There was a positive correlation between rank and total duration of play for plush toys (2 marks: correlation) There was no (significant) correlation between rank and total duration of play for wheeled toys (2 marks: correlation) There was a relationship between duration of play and rank for plush toys but not for wheeled toys (2 marks: comparison)

There was a correlation between the two (1 mark)

2

1 mark maximum if the type of toy is not explicitly mentioned.

Do accept if presented as high ranked played for longer with plush toys than low ranked.

Similar to Q3(a) do not credit 'played more' or 'preferred'.

Explain one weakness of this study.

1 mark for the identification of weakness

1 mark for explaining the weakness via example from the study.

e.g.

(Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the troop were captive so may not represent wild (rhesus) monkey behaviour (1 mark: explained in context).

(Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark: identification) as in the wild (rhesus) monkeys would not play with wheeled/plush toys (1 mark: explained in context).

(Difficult to) control (extraneous) variables (1 mark: identification)

There are other creditworthy responses, including ethics and observer bias.

2

Do not accept 'cruel as not in the wild' type answers.

Do not accept 'monkeys cannot communicate to tell us.'

Do not accept broke the ethical guideline of numbers.

Do not accept does not generalise to humans as an explanation (but do credit ID).

If identification and explanation do not match, can still award the identification mark.

Do not accept opportunity sampling.

From the study by Hölzel et al (mindfulness and brain scans):

Outline one aim of the study.

2 marks for full aim

1 mark for partial/brief aim

e.g.

To investigate the effect of mindfulness stress reduction on brain density (2 marks);

To investigate the benefits of mindfulness (1 mark);

To investigate changes in brain density in people (1 mark)

To investigate mindfulness (0 marks as this is in the question)

There are other creditworthy responses.

2

Accept 'changes in brain
structure’.

1 mark for naming the factor.

1 mark for outlining the factor.

e.g.

Observing/observation (1 mark). This is about attending to internal/external stimuli (1 mark)

Describing (1 mark). This is labelling a stimulus with word(s) (1 mark)

Non-judging (of inner experiences) (1 mark). Not evaluating one's emotions (1 mark)

Non-reactivity (of inner experiences) (1 mark). Allowing thoughts to just come and go (1 mark)

2

List is definitive.