Practise applying AS debates to named studies, using precise evidence to judge everyday applications, individual or situational explanations and research ethics.
Two friends, Luis and Ava, are discussing the application to everyday life of the study by Milgram (obedience). Luis says the study does have application to everyday life, but Ava says the study does not have application to everyday life.
Explain why you think either Luis or Ava is correct, using evidence from this study in your answer. The friend who I think is correct is because:
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.
Suggest two problems that could arise if children were used as participants in the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans).
1
2
For each problem (max 2 per problem): 1 mark for identification/outline of the problem (generic) 1 mark for linking it to Hölzel et al.
e.g.
It can be difficult for children to keep still (1 mark: identification/outline). For an MRI scan to work, the person has to remain still for a period of time (1 mark alternative: identification/outline).
Therefore, there may be no valid way of measuring brain density as the scans may never be correct/never happen (1 mark: link)
Children may not understand what is being asked of them (1 mark: identification/outline). Therefore, the children may not understand how yoga/mindfulness works (1 mark alternative: identification/outline).
As a result, the children may have seen yoga as a game and therefore effectiveness might not have been measured (1 mark: link).
There are other creditworthy responses, including children can lie about participation in homework, brain developing so grey matter could increase for different reason(s).
4
Go with the intention of the candidate.