Psychology

1. 1.

   Fictional study: adults are randomly assigned to study words in silence or with instrumental music, then complete the same recall test, scored as the number of words correctly recalled. Identify the independent and dependent variables.

   [2 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. The researcher manipulates the study environment and measures later recall. Naming 'memory' alone is too broad to specify how the dependent variable is recorded.

   Marking points

   • Independent variable: study sound condition, silence versus instrumental music.
   • Dependent variable: recall performance, operationalised as the number of words correctly recalled.

   Examiner tip: Operationalise the measured outcome, not just its psychological label.

2. 2.

   Fictional study: volunteers choose whether to join the music or silence condition. Explain why this is not random allocation and one threat it creates.

   [2 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. People who enjoy studying with music may select that condition and also differ in habits. An observed difference could therefore reflect those habits rather than sound alone.

   Marking points

   • Random allocation uses chance, not participant choice, to assign conditions.
   • Preferences or pre-existing abilities may differ between the self-selected groups and confound the effect.

   Examiner tip: Random sampling and random allocation solve different problems.

3. 3.

   Fictional study: the same participants solve puzzles once rested and once after a long workday, always in that order. Analyse an order effect and propose a design improvement while addressing time-of-day confounding.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Counterbalancing addresses sequence, but cannot alone fix a design in which every tired test is later in the day. Use matched testing times across sessions and equivalent materials, with ethical limits on fatigue.

   Marking points

   • Practice in the first session can improve second-session performance independently of fatigue.
   • Counterbalancing condition order can distribute order effects across conditions.
   • Equivalent puzzle sets reduce direct recall of solutions.
   • Control test time or vary rest experimentally at matched times to separate fatigue from time of day.

   Examiner tip: Identify separate confounds rather than presenting counterbalancing as a universal fix.

4. 4.

   Fictional study: researchers observe adults in a café and record identifiable conversations about personal relationships without consent. Analyse two ethical concerns and suggest a safer alternative.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Consent and privacy matter even outside a laboratory. Redesign around the minimum necessary data and avoid recording sensitive identities merely because access is easy.

   Marking points

   • A public location does not automatically remove reasonable privacy expectations for personal conversation.
   • Identifiable records create confidentiality and potential harm risks.
   • Use informed consenting participants or observe non-sensitive, non-identifiable public behaviours.
   • Independent ethical review should assess necessity, data protection and withdrawal arrangements.

   Examiner tip: Being observable in public is not blanket permission to record intimate details.

5. 5.

   Fictional proposal: a researcher wants to study helping by staging an alarming collapse in a busy station without telling bystanders. Evaluate whether deception is justified and propose an ethical alternative.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Naturalistic realism is not enough to justify serious distress. A controlled, low-risk simulation with consenting participants and appropriate disclosure safeguards may answer a narrower question ethically. This is analysis, not permission to conduct the proposal.

   Marking points

   • Indicative: undisclosed observation may reduce demand characteristics.
   • Alarm can cause distress and involve non-consenting bystanders or emergency services.
   • Debriefing cannot automatically undo immediate harm or reach every bystander.
   • A justified judgement considers proportionate consent-based simulation and prior independent ethical review.

   Examiner tip: Do not assume scientific value overrides participant welfare.

6. 6.

   Fictional case: a laboratory experiment finds better puzzle scores with a visible countdown. Evaluate generalising this result to workplace deadlines.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. A controlled effect is valuable but task-specific. Test whether the mechanism survives realistic demands and whether performance gains coexist with stress or errors before recommending workplace countdowns.

   Marking points

   • Indicative: experimental control can support a causal inference for the studied task.
   • Work deadlines involve longer durations, consequences and task complexity unlike brief puzzles.
   • Sample characteristics and awareness of testing can limit external validity.
   • A justified judgement calls for realistic replication before broad workplace application.

   Examiner tip: Internal validity does not guarantee external validity.

Original, unofficial practice questions from SubjectScout — not official past-paper questions.