Practise turning research questions into measurable studies by defining hypotheses and variables, controlling procedures, selecting samples and interpreting data.
A study has the hypothesis 'Four-year-old children make more language mistakes than eight-year-old children.'
State whether this hypothesis is a:
- directional hypothesis
- non-directional hypothesis
- null hypothesis.
directional hypothesis (definitive)
1
3(b)
Explain the reason for your choice in part (a).
It says which level of the IV will be better/higher;
(generic) It says which IV level, in this case older children, will be 'better';
(link)
As it states the causal effect of older age causing fewer mistakes;
(link)
2
Generic response = 1
Linked response =2
'Shows direction of results' =0= REP
A parrot rescue centre has some new parrots which need to learn to enter a cage. Their trainer is planning a procedure using operant conditioning to teach the parrots to enter the cage.
The success of the procedure can be measured by counting the number of days it takes each parrot to learn to enter the cage.
Suggest two practical problems with this measurement of success.
1
2
Suggest two practical problems with this measurement of success.
1:....
2:....
Learning in 1 minute, 1 hour or 1 day would all look the same;
(linked limitation)
So the data would be invalid (loss of discriminatory power);
(detail)
Parrots may all learn on first day;
(linked limitation) so ceiling effect;
(detail)
some parrots may go in then straight out;
(linked limitation) so not a useful measure for aim;
(detail)
parrots may focus for various lengths of time;
(linked limitation)
so not all parrots have same amount of training time;
(linked detail)
ethical limitations =0 [NAQ]
4
Limitation =1}[×2]
Either limitation or detail must be linked for 2 marks
Detail = 1\}
Individual differences between parrots =0= NAQ
For one of the problems you suggested in part (b)(i):
Suggest one way this problem could be solved.
Problem 1 or 2:
1 min =1 day / Ceiling effect:
Make interval shorter / avoids a ceiling effect / easier to distinguish between learning speed / bigger range of scores is possible;
(way) eg count hours;
(detail)
straight out again:
add time limit to 'enter cage';
(way)
e.g. and 'stay inside for 30 seconds';
(detail)
parrot focus:
only train in short bouts;
(way)
or stop when parrot isn't focussing;
(detail)
2
Way = 1
Detail = 1
The prompt (Problem: 1 or 2) should be used. If not clear, credit if possible
There are many members of staff at the rescue centre. The trainer cannot decide whether the parrots will learn better if the other staff are present or absent while the parrots are being trained.
Explain one reason why the parrots may learn better if the other staff are present during the parrots' training.
Better if present, if familiar with people;
(exp) They may be less afraid (by people);
(detail)
Better if present, people may make them feel secure;
(exp) So they pay attention more / are motivated more;
(detail) Better if present, as people motivate them;
(exp) eg audience effect/social facilitation/showing off;
(detail) social desirability / demand characteristics = 0
2
Explanation for staff presence =1
Detail =1
Explain one reason why the parrots may learn better if the other staff are absent during the parrots' training.
Better if absent, parrots need to focus to learn;
(exp)
Staff might distract them;
(detail)
2
Explanation for staff absence =1
Detail = 1
Memory research is often conducted using eyewitnesses who have witnessed a real crime. Alternatively, researchers can use a simulated crime in a laboratory and ask participants what they remember.
One strength of using a simulated crime in a laboratory is that it can improve objectivity.
Outline what is meant by the term 'objectivity', including an example about eyewitnesses.
using an example about eyewitnesses.
judgment from external perspective;
(outline) independent viewpoint;
(outline) data obtained without personal bias;
(outline)
researchers might be biased by emotions/suffering of real eyewitnesses;
(example)
in artificial situations, researcher knows the correct memories of the scene;
(e.g.)
2
Outline =1
example must relate to objectivity= 1
an eyewitness seeing a thief stealing something =0 [NAQ not about objectivity]
If an effective answer is given relating to Pozzulo, credit it.
Describe how one feature of the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) helped to make the study objective.
responses to line-ups limited to present or not;
(strategy) so no 'maybe' or 'more likely to be x than y';
(how it helped) participants' responses were quantitative (present or not);
strategy)
so the researchers did not have to interpret the results;
(how it helped)
2
Objectivity strategy = 1
How it helped = 1
silhouettes (as a 'target absent' choice);
(strategy) making the choice an objective one between present/absent rather than a difficult choice of present/not present;
(how it helped)
One group of participants in the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) was a sample of 16 right-handed adults: 6 males and 10 females.
Explain two reasons why this sample may not be representative.
1
2
Gender bias / more females than males;
So not / less representative of males;
All righthanded;
So not / less representative of lefthanders;
All adults;
So not / less representative of children;
Small sample;
So not much variability;
So not generalisable to ambidextrous people / wide variety
of...;
(must be specific)
4
Partial explanation = 1
Full explanation = 2
Credit answers with other knowledge of the study eg. ages, ethnicity
Faiza is planning to investigate the effect of air pollution on emotion. She had planned to conduct a laboratory experiment, but rejected this for ethical reasons.
Suggest one reason why conducting a laboratory experiment for Faiza's investigation could have been unethical.
(risk of) physical harm / (poor) protection of participants;
(reason)
Pollution is dangerous;
(linked detail)
(hard to give) informed consent;
(reason) Cannot know in advance of risk damage;
(linked detail)
2
Reason = 1 (can be basic and generic, eg. named guideline)
Linked detail = 1
Faiza decides to use geography students as participants. They are visiting a rural environment and a polluted city as part of their geography course. She will collect data in both places.
Explain one reason why Faiza's new plan is more ethical.
Students exposed to pollution anyway;
(linked reason) So no more risk of harm than in normal life;
(detail) Rather than deliberately / on purpose / in a lab;
(detail)
Consent is only to participate in study;
(detail) So can be fully informed because Faiza's not causing exposure;
(linked reason)
2
Linked reason = 1
Detail = 1
Describe how one feature of the study by Milgram (obedience) helped to make the study valid.
Describe how one feature of the study by Milgram (obedience) helped to make the study valid.
- Shock machine looked real; / thought the shocks were real;
- Drawing lots was rigged;
- Grey technician's coat;
- Location at a university;
- Told it was about memory and punishment (deception);
So participants unlikely to suspect the deception / guess aim / respond to demand characteristics;
(how) the prods were the same for all Ps / standardised;
(how)
E.g. all Ps heard 'please continue';
(feature)
2
Link (feature of study) = 1
How it helped validity = 1
Authority figure = 0
Authority figure looked real because of coat/of location = 1
Mary is conducting a case study on a boy diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder. He produces many detailed doodles and Mary wants to learn about him and his doodling.
Suggest one way to improve the reliability of the procedure you described in part (a). Justify your answer.
Do not refer to sampling or ethics in your answer.
Part of procedure may relate to:
- standardisation
- consistency within and between raters (reliability).
Accept other practical influences on reliability.
2
Suggestion for improvement of reliability = 1 (linked to (b)(i))
Justification = 1 (linked or generic)
The results from the study by Andrade (doodling) included the following data about the shading of shapes by participants in the doodling group:
- the mean number per participant was 36.3
- the range was 3-110.
Outline what these two results show about doodling by this group of participants.
Outline what these two results show about doodling by this group of participants.
- the mean number per participant was 36.3
- the range was 3-110.
2
Any descriptive point about the mean =1
Any descriptive point about the range =1
The mean/average doodling was in the bottom half of the range;
(mean)
All participants in this group doodled;
(range)
The variation in doodling was very wide;
(range)
Statements relating to the non-doodlers =0 [NAQ]
Comparative statements to controls =0 [NAQ]
Copying the numbers =0 [REP]
Conclusions =0= NAQ