AQA A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 1 MS 2020., Exams of Nursing

Download AQA A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 1 MS 2020. and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!

Page 1 of 19

A-level

PSYCHOLOGY

7182/

Paper I 1 I Introductory Itopics Iin Ipsychology

Mark Ischeme June I 2020 Version: I1.0 IFinal IMark IScheme

• 20 6A 7182 /1/MS*

Mark Ischemes Iare Iprepared Iby Ithe ILead IAssessment IWriter Iand Iconsidered, Itogether Iwith Ithe Irelevant Iquestions, Iby Ia Ipanel Iof Isubject Iteachers. IThis Imark Ischeme Iincludes Iany Iamendments Imade Iat Ithe Istandardisation Ievents Iwhich Iall Iassociates Iparticipate Iin Iand Iis Ithe Ischeme Iwhich Iwas Iused Iby Ithem Iin Ithis Iexamination. IThe Istandardisation Iprocess Iensures Ithat Ithe Imark Ischeme Icovers Ithe Istudents’ Iresponses Ito Iquestions Iand Ithat Ievery Iassociate Iunderstands Iand Iapplies Iit Iin Ithe Isame Icorrect Iway. As Ipreparation Ifor Istandardisation Ieach Iassociate Ianalyses Ia Inumber Iof Istudents’ Iscripts. IAlternative Ianswers Inot Ialready Icovered Iby Ithe Imark Ischeme Iare Idiscussed Iand Ilegislated Ifor. IIf, Iafter Ithe Istandardisation Iprocess, Iassociates Iencounter Iunusual Ianswers Iwhich Ihave Inot Ibeen Iraised Ithey Iare Irequired Ito Irefer Ithese Ito Ithe ILead IExaminer. It Imust Ibe Istressed Ithat Ia Imark Ischeme Iis Ia Iworking Idocument, Iin Imany Icases Ifurther Ideveloped Iand Iexpanded Ion Ithe Ibasis Iof Istudents’ Ireactions Ito Ia Iparticular Ipaper. IAssumptions Iabout Ifuture Imark Ischemes Ion Ithe Ibasis Iof Ione Iyear’s Idocument Ishould Ibe Iavoided; Iwhilst Ithe Iguiding Iprinciples Iof Iassessment Iremain Iconstant, Idetails Iwill Ichange, Idepending Ion Ithe Icontent Iof Ia Iparticular Iexamination Ipaper. Further Icopies Iof Ithis Imark Ischeme Iare Iavailable Ifrom Iaqa.org.uk. Copyright Iinformation AQA Iretains Ithe Icopyright Ion Iall Iits Ipublications. IHowever, Iregistered Ischools/colleges Ifor IAQA Iare Ipermitted Ito Icopy Imaterial Ifrom Ithis Ibooklet Ifor Itheir Iown Iinternal Iuse, Iwith Ithe Ifollowing Iimportant Iexception: IAQA Icannot Igive Ipermission Ito Ischools/colleges Ito Iphotocopy Iany Imaterial Ithat Iis Iacknowledged Ito Ia IthirdIparty Ieven Ifor Iinternal Iuse Iwithin Ithe Icentre. Copyright I© I 2020 IAQA Iand Iits Ilicensors. I All Irights Ireserved.

Level Iof Iresponse I marking Iinstructions Level Iof Iresponse Imark Ischemes Iare Ibroken Idown Iinto Ilevels, Ieach Iof Iwhich Ihas Ia Idescriptor. IThe Idescriptor Ifor Ithe Ilevel Ishows Ithe Iaverage Iperformance Ifor Ithe Ilevel. IThere Iare Imarks Iin Ieach Ilevel. Before Iyou Iapply Ithe Imark Ischeme Ito Ia Istudent’s Ianswer Iread Ithrough Ithe Ianswer Iand Iannotate Iit I(as Iinstructed) Ito Ishow Ithe Iqualities Ithat Iare Ibeing Ilooked Ifor. IYou Ican Ithen Iapply Ithe Imark Ischeme. Step I 1 IDetermine Ia Ilevel Start Iat Ithe Ilowest Ilevel Iof Ithe Imark Ischeme Iand Iuse Iit Ias Ia Iladder Ito Isee Iwhether Ithe Ianswer Imeets Ithe Idescriptor Ifor Ithat Ilevel. IThe Idescriptor Ifor Ithe Ilevel Iindicates Ithe Idifferent Iqualities Ithat Imight Ibe Iseen Iin Ithe Istudent’s Ianswer Ifor Ithat Ilevel. IIf Iit Imeets Ithe Ilowest Ilevel Ithen Igo Ito Ithe Inext Ione Iand Idecide Iif Iit Imeets Ithis Ilevel, Iand Iso Ion, Iuntil Iyou Ihave Ia Imatch Ibetween Ithe Ilevel Idescriptor Iand Ithe Ianswer. IWith Ipractice Iand Ifamiliarity Iyou Iwill Ifind Ithat Ifor Ibetter Ianswers Iyou Iwill Ibe Iable Ito Iquickly Iskip Ithrough Ithe Ilower Ilevels Iof Ithe Imark Ischeme. When Iassigning Ia Ilevel Iyou Ishould Ilook Iat Ithe Ioverall Iquality Iof Ithe Ianswer Iand Inot Ilook Ito Ipick Iholes Iin Ismall Iand Ispecific Iparts Iof Ithe Ianswer Iwhere Ithe Istudent Ihas Inot Iperformed Iquite Ias Iwell Ias Ithe Irest. IIf Ithe Ianswer Icovers Idifferent Iaspects Iof Idifferent Ilevels Iof Ithe Imark Ischeme Iyou Ishould Iuse Ia Ibest Ifit Iapproach Ifor Idefining Ithe Ilevel Iand Ithen Iuse Ithe Ivariability Iof Ithe Iresponse Ito Ihelp Idecide Ithe Imark Iwithin Ithe Ilevel, Iie Iif Ithe Iresponse Iis Ipredominantly Ilevel I 3 Iwith Ia Ismall Iamount Iof Ilevel I 4 Imaterial Iit Iwould Ibe Iplaced Iin Ilevel I 3 Ibut Ibe Iawarded Ia Imark Inear Ithe Itop Iof Ithe Ilevel Ibecause Iof Ithe Ilevel I 4 Icontent. Step I 2 IDetermine Ia Imark Once Iyou Ihave Iassigned Ia Ilevel Iyou Ineed Ito Idecide Ion Ithe Imark. IThe Idescriptors Ion Ihow Ito Iallocate Imarks Ican Ihelp Iwith Ithis. IThe Iexemplar Imaterials Iused Iduring Istandardisation Iwill Ihelp. IAnswers Iin Ithe Istandardising Imaterials Iwill Icorrespond Iwith Ithe Idifferent Ilevels Iof Ithe Imark Ischeme. IThese Ianswers Iwill Ihave Ibeen Iawarded Ia Imark Iby Ithe ILead IExaminer. IYou Ican Icompare Ithe Istudent’s Ianswer Iwith Ithe Istandardised Iexamples Ito Idetermine Iif Iit Iis Ithe Isame Istandard, Ibetter Ior Iworse Ithan Ithe Iexample. IYou Ican Ithen Iuse Ithis Ito Iallocate Ia Imark Ifor Ithe Ianswer Ibased Ion Ithe ILead IExaminer’s Imark Ion Ithe Iexample. You Imay Iwell Ineed Ito Iread Iback Ithrough Ithe Ianswer Ias Iyou Iapply Ithe Imark Ischeme Ito Iclarify Ipoints Iand Iassure Iyourself Ithat Ithe Ilevel Iand Ithe Imark Iare Iappropriate. Indicative Icontent Iin Ithe Imark Ischeme Iis Iprovided Ias Ia Iguide Ifor Iexaminers. IIt Iis Inot Iintended Ito Ibe Iexhaustive Iand Iyou Imust Icredit Iother Ivalid Ipoints. IStudents Ido Inot Ihave Ito Icover Iall Iof Ithe Ipoints Imentioned Iin Ithe Iindicative Icontent Ito Ireach Ithe Ihighest Ilevel Iof Ithe Imark Ischeme. An Ianswer Iwhich Icontains Inothing Iof Irelevance Ito Ithe Iquestion Imust Ibe Iawarded Ino Imarks.

Section I A ISocial Iinfluence Which I one I of Ithe Ifollowing Iis Imost Iassociated Iwith Iinformational Isocial Iinfluence? [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 1 C Using Iyour Iknowledge Iof Iminority Iinfluence Iprocesses, Iexplain I two I ways Iin Iwhich ISamina Icould Iconvince Ithe Iother Istudents Iin Ithe Idebating Isociety Ito Iagree Iwith Iher. [4 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO2 I= I 4 For I each I way Iaward Imarks Ias Ifollows: 2 Imarks I for Ia Iclear, Icoherent Iexplanation Iwith Isome Ielaborated Iapplication. 1 Imark I for Ia Ilimited, Imuddled Iexplanation. Possible Icontent:

• Samina Icould Idemonstrate Iconsistency Iby Inot Ideviating Ifrom Iher Iview Ithat Idrugs Ishould Inot Ibe Ilegalised I– Ishe Icould Ipoint Iout Ithat Ithis Iis Ia Iview Ishe Ihas Iheld Ifor Imany Iyears
• Samina Icould Idemonstrate Icommitment Iby Idefending Iher Iview Ithat Idrugs Ishould Inot Ibe Ilegalised Ithrough Isome Ipersonal Iinvestment I– Ifor Iinstance, Ioffering Ito Ispeak Iin Iassembly Iabout Ithe Idangers Iof Idrugs. IThis Iwill Idraw Imore Iattention Ito Iher Icase I(augmentation Iprinciple)
• Samina Ishould Idemonstrate Iflexibility Iby Iadapting Iher Iview/accepting Iother Ivalid Icounterarguments. IPerhaps Isome I‘softer’ Idrugs Icould Ibe Idecriminalised, Irather Ithan Ilegalised
• over Itime, Ithe Irest Iof Ithe Idebating Isociety Imay Ibecome I‘converted’ I(snowball Ieffect) I– Ifor Iexample, Iif ISamina Imakes Iher Icase Iparticularly Iwell
• credit Iother Ivalid Ipoints, Ieg Ipersistence, Iconfidence. There Iare I no Imarks I for Isimply Ilisting, Ieg Iconsistency, Icommitment, Iflexibility. IIf Imore Ithan Itwo Iways Iare Ipresented Ithe Ibest Itwo Ishould Ibe Icredited.

Explain Ihow IAsch’s Iconformity Iresearch Iillustrates I one I of Ithese Ifeatures Iof Iscience. [3 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO2 I= I 3 3 Imarks I for Ia Iclear, Ielaborated Iexplanation Iof Ihow IAsch’s Iconformity Iresearch Iillustrates Ithe Ichosen Ifeature I– Imust Ibe Iexplicit Icontextualisation. 2 Imarks I for Ian Iexplanation Iwith Isome Ielaboration. IContextualisation Imay Ibe Iimplicit. 1 mark I for Ia Ilimited Ior Imuddled Iexplanation. Possible Icontent:

• replicability I– IAsch’s Istudies Ihad Istandardised Iprocedures I(eg Ithe Inumber Iof Iconfederates; Ilength Iof Ilines Ietc) Iwhich Imeant Ithat Ithey Icould Ibe Irepeated/replicated Ito Iassess Iconsistency/reliability Iof Ithe Ifindings; Ithis Iincreased Ithe Ivalidity Iof Ithe Iconclusions Idrawn
• theory Iconstruction I– IAsch’s Ifindings Iled Ito Ithe Idevelopment Iof Iexplanations/theories Iof Iconformity, Ieg Ithat Ipeople Iwill Iconform Ito Igroup Ipressure Ito Iavoid Iridicule I(normative Isocial Iinfluence)
• hypothesis Itesting I– IAsch’s Iresearch Itested Ithe Iassumption Ithat Inaive Iparticipants Iwould Iconform Ito Ian Iobviously Iwrong Ianswer Iwhen Iplaced Iunder Igroup Ipressure; Ithis Iwas Iachieved Iby Imanipulating Ian IIV I(fake/genuine Ianswer) Ito Imeasure Ithe Ieffect Ion Ithe IDV Iand Ikeeping Iother I(possible Iconfounding) Ivariables Iconstant. Credit Iother Irelevant Icontent.

Discuss Ithe Ilegitimacy Iof Iauthority I and I agentic Istate Iexplanations Iof Iobedience. IRefer Ito IFreddie’s Ibehaviour Iin Iyour Ianswer. Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I6, IAO2 I= I4, IAO3 I= I 6 [16 Imarks] Level Marks Description 4 13 – 16 Knowledge Iof Ilegitimacy Iof Iauthority Iand Iagentic Istate Iis Iaccurate Iand Igenerally Iwell Idetailed. IApplication Iis Ieffective. IDiscussion Iis Ithorough Iand Ieffective. IMinor Idetail Iand/or Iexpansion Iof Iargument Iis Isometimes Ilacking. IThe Ianswer Iis Iclear, Icoherent Iand Ifocused. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Ieffectively. 3 9 – 12 Knowledge Iof Ilegitimacy Iof Iauthority Iand Iagentic Istate Iis Ievident Ibut Ithere Iare Ioccasional Iinaccuracies/omissions. IApplication Iand/or Idiscussion Iis Imostly Ieffective. IThe Ianswer Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Iorganised Ibut Ioccasionally Ilacks Ifocus. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iappropriately. 2 5 – 8 Limited Iknowledge Iof Ilegitimacy Iof Iauthority Iand Iagentic Istate Iis Ipresent. IFocus Iis Imainly Ion Idescription. IAny Idiscussion Iand/or Iapplication Iis Iof Ilimited Ieffectiveness. IThe Ianswer Ilacks Iclarity, Iaccuracy Iand Iorganisation Iin Iplaces. Specialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iinappropriately Ion Ioccasions IOR Ione Itheory Ionly Iat ILevel I3/4. 1 1 – 4 Knowledge Iof Ilegitimacy Iof Iauthority Iand Iagentic Istate Iis Ivery Ilimited. IDiscussion Iand/or Iapplication Iis Ilimited, Ipoorly Ifocused Ior Iabsent. IThe Ianswer Ias Ia Iwhole Ilacks Iclarity, Ihas Imany Iinaccuracies Iand Iis Ipoorly Iorganised. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Ieither Iabsent Ior Iinappropriately Iused IOR Ione Itheory Ionly Iat ILevel 1/2. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent: Legitimacy Iof Iauthority:

• when Ia Iperson Irecognises Itheir Iown Iand Iother’s Iposition Iin Ia Isocial Ihierarchy
• legitimacy Iis Iincreased Iby Ivisible Isymbols Iof Iauthority, Ieg Iuniform
• legitimacy Iof Isetting, Iorder, Isystem. Agentic Istate:
• when Ia Iperson Iacts Ion Ibehalf Iof Ian Iauthority Ifigure/person Iof Ihigher Istatus
• the Iactor Ifeels Ino Ipersonal Iresponsibility/does Inot Ifeel Iguilty Ifor Itheir Iactions
• the Iopposite Iof Ian Iautonomous Istate Iin Iwhich Ipeople Iact Iaccording Ito Itheir Iown Iprinciples
• reference Ito Ibinding Ifactors. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. Possible Iapplication: Legitimacy Iof Iauthority:
• Freddie Ipays Ino Iattention Ito Ihis Ifriend Ias Ithey Ihave Iequal Istatus Iin Ithe Isocial Ihierarchy
• the Ideputy Ihead Iis Ia Ilegitimate Iauthority Iwithin Ithe Isocial Isystem I(school)
• the Ideputy Ihead Iis Ia Ivisible Isymbol Iof Iauthority I(high-vis Ijacket). Agentic Istate:
• when Imaking Ifun Iof Ihis Ifriend’s Irequest, IFreddie Iis Iin Ian Iautonomous Istate
• when Ihe Isees Ithe Ideputy Ihead, IFreddie Ienters Ithe Iagentic Istate I‘without Ithinking’ Iand Iobserves Ischool Irules I(queuing Iin Iline).

Accept Iother Ivalid Iapplication Ipoints. Possible Idiscussion:

• use Iof Ievidence Ito Isupport/contradict Ithe Iexplanations, Ieg IMilgram Ivariations, IBickman, IHofling
• use Iof Ireal-life Iexamples Ito Iillustrate Iexplanations, Ieg IMy ILai Imassacre
• neither Iexplanation Ican Iaccount Ifor Irates Iof Idisobedience Iin Istudies
• obedience Imay Ibe Idispositional, Inot Isituational, Ieg Iauthoritarian Ipersonality
  • discussion Iof Idifficulty Imeasuring Iand/or Idistinguishing Ibetween Ireasons Iwhy Iobedience Ioccurs. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. Only Icredit Ievaluation Iof Ithe Imethodology Iused Iin Istudies Iwhen Imade Irelevant Ito Ithe Idiscussion Iof Ithe Iexplanations.

Section IB IMemory Which Itype Iof Ilong-term Imemory Iwould Ibe Imost Iassociated Iwith Ithe Ifollowing? IWrite Ithe Icorrect Itype Iof Ilong-term Imemory Iin Ithe Ispaces Iprovided.

. Stored^ Iwith^ Ireference^ Ito^ Icontextual^ Iinformation,^ Ieg^ Itime^ Iand^ Iplace. [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 1 Episodic . Difficult^ Ito^ Idescribe^ Iin^ Iwords. [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 1 Procedural . Knowing^ Ithe^ Imeaning^ Iof^ Ia^ Iword. [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 1 Semantic

State I one I advantage Iof Ian Iindependent Igroups Idesign. [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO3 I= I 1 Possible Iadvantages:

• removes Iorder Ieffects/effects Iof Ipractise/fatigue Ietc
  • participants Iare Iless Ilikely Ito Iwork Iout Ithe Iaim Iand Ichange Itheir Ibehaviour/less Iinfluenced Iby Idemand Icharacteristics. Accept Iother Ivalid Iadvantages. Suggest Ia Imore Iappropriate Imeasure Iof Icentral Itendency Ifor Ithis Idata Iset I and I explain Iwhy Iit Iwould Ibe Imore Iappropriate. [3 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO3 I= I 3 I 1 Imark I for Ithe Imedian. Plus 2 marks I for Ia Iclear, Ielaborated Iexplanation Iof Iwhy Ithe Imedian Iwould Ibe Imore Iappropriate Ifor Ithis Idata Iset. 1 mark I for Ia Ilimited Ior Imuddled Iexplanation, Ior Ino Iexplicit Ireference Ito Ithe Idata Iset. Possible Icontent:
  • the Imedian Iwould Ibe Ibetter Ias Ithere Iis Ia Ilarge Ianomalous Iresult Iin Ithe Idata Iset I(p4 Ihas Iscored I28). IThis Iwould Idistort Ithe Imean Ivalue Imaking Iit Iunrepresentative Iof Ithe Idata Iset Ias Ia Iwhole OR
  • recall Iof Iwords Icannot Ibe Iclassed Ias Iinterval Idata Ias Inot Iall Iwords Iare Iequally Idifficult/easy Ito Irecall. IAs Ithe Idata Iis Iordinal, Ithe Imedian Ishould Ibe Iused Irather Ithan Ithe Imean.

Using Ian Iexample, Iexplain Iwhat Iis Imeant Iby Iretroactive Iinterference. [3 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 3 2 marks I for Ia Iclear, Ielaborated Iexplanation Iof Iretroactive Iinterference. 1 Imark I for Ia Ilimited Ior Imuddled Iexplanation. Possible Icontent:

• when Inew/recently Istored Iinformation Idisrupts/affects Ithe Irecall Iof Iold/previously Istored Iinformation
• more Ilikely Iif Icompeting Iinformation Iis Isimilar. Plus 1 Imark I for Ian Iappropriate Iexample. Explain Ihow Ithe Ipolice Icould Iuse Ithe Icognitive Iinterview Ito Ihelp IDanielle’s Irecall Iof Ithe Ievent. [6 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO2 I= I 6 Level Marks Description 3 5 – 6 Application Iof Iknowledge Ito IDanielle’s Iexperience Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Ieffective. IThe Ianswer Iis Igenerally Icoherent Iwith Iappropriate Iuse Iof Iterminology. 2 3 – 4 There Iis Isome Iapplication Iof Iknowledge Ito IDanielle’s Iexperience. IThe Ianswer Ilacks Iclarity Iin Iplaces. ITerminology Iis Iused Iappropriately Ion Ioccasions. 1 1 – 2 There Iis Ilimited Iapplication Iof Iknowledge Ito IDanielle’s Iexperience. IThe Ianswer Ias Ia Iwhole Ilacks Iclarity Iand Ihas Iinaccuracies. ITerminology Iis Ieither Iabsent Ior inappropriately Iused. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent:
• Danielle Iis Iencouraged Ito Imentally Ireinstate Ithe Icontext, Ireminded Iof, Ieg Iwhy Ishe Iwas Iwalking Idown Ithe Ihigh Istreet, Ithe Iweather Ietc Ias Ithis Imay Itrigger Ifurther Iinformation I(reinstate Ithe Icontext)
• Danielle Ishould Ibe Iasked Ito Ireport Ievery Idetail Ieven Iif Iit Iseems Iirrelevant, Ieg Iwhat Ithe Iattacker Iwas Iwearing, Ithe Istyle Iof Ithe Ihandbag Ietc I(report Ieverything)
• Danielle Ishould Ibe Iasked Ito Irecall Ithe Ievent Iin Ia Idifferent Iorder, Ieg Ibeginning Ifrom Iwhen Ishe Icomforted Ithe Ielderly Iwoman Iand Iworking Ibackwards I(changing Iorder)
• Danielle Ishould Irecall Ithe Ievent Ifrom Ithe Iperspective Iof Iothers, Ieg Ithe Icouple Iof Iother Iwitnesses Iwho Iwere Ipresent Iat Ithe Itime I(changing Iperspective)
• credit Ifeatures Iof Ienhanced Icognitive Iinterview Ito Ifacilitate Irecall Iif Iapplied Ito IDanielle’s Iexperience. Credit Iother Ivalid Iapplications. Answers Imay Icover Ifewer Ipoints Iin Imore Idepth Ior Imore Ipoints Iin Iless Idepth.

Outline Iand Ievaluate Iresearch Iinto Iduration Iin Imemory. [8 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I3, IAO3 I= I 5 Level Marks Description 4 7 – 8 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Iduration Iin Imemory Iis Iaccurate Iand Igenerally Iwell Idetailed. IEvaluation Iis Ithorough Iand Ieffective. IMinor Idetail Iand/or Iexpansion Iof Iargument Iis Isometimes Ilacking. IThe Ianswer Iis Iclear, Icoherent Iand Ifocused. Specialist Iterminology Iis Iused Ieffectively. 3 5 – 6 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Iduration Iin Imemory Iis Ievident Ibut Ithere Iare Ioccasional Iinaccuracies/omissions. IEvaluation Iis Imostly Ieffective. IThe Ianswer Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Iorganised Ibut Ioccasionally Ilacks Ifocus. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iappropriately. 2 3 – 4 Limited Iknowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Iduration Iin Imemory Iis Ipresent. IFocus Iis Imainly Ion Idescription. IAny Ievaluation Ipresent Iis Iof Ilimited Ieffectiveness. IThe Ianswer Ilacks Iclarity, Iaccuracy Iand Iorganisation Iin Iplaces. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iinappropriately Ion Ioccasions. 1 1 – 2 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Iduration Iin Imemory Iis Ivery Ilimited. IEvaluation Iis Ilimited, Ipoorly Ifocused Ior Iabsent. IThe Ianswer Ias Ia Iwhole Ilacks Iclarity, Ihas Imany Iinaccuracies Iand Iis Ipoorly Iorganised. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Ieither Iabsent Ior Iinappropriately Iused. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent

• knowledge Iof Iprocedures Iand/or Ifindings/conclusions Iof Istudies Iwhich Iinvestigate Iduration Iof Isensory Imemory, ISTM Ior ILTM, Ieg IPeterson Iand IPeterson I- ITrigrams Istudy I(1959), IBahrick I- IYearbook Istudy I(1974). Accept Iother Ivalid Istudies Iof Iduration Iin Imemory. Note: I That Ithe Iterm I‘research’ Imay Iinclude Itheories/explanations Iand/or Istudies. Possible Ievaluation:
• use Iof Iartificial Imaterial, Ieg Irecall Iof Itrigrams, Ilists Iof Iunconnected Iwords Ietc
• use Iof Iartificial Ilaboratory Isetting
• discussion Iof Iissues Iof Ivalidity I(higher Iin IBahrick Istudy), Ireliability
• alternative Iexplanations I– IPeterson Iand IPeterson’s Ifindings Imay Ibe Imore Ito Ido Iwith Iinterference Ithan Iduration. Note Ithat Ione Istudy Iis Isufficient Ifor Ifull Imarks.

Section IC IAttachmen t

. Identify^ Ithe^ Iattachment^ Itype^ Ithat^ IAnnie’s^ Imother^ Iis^ Idescribing. [1 Imark] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO2 I= I 1 Insecure-resistant/anxious-resistant/insecure-ambivalent/resistant/ambivalent/Type I C. IDo I not I credit I‘insecure’. . Distinguish^ Ibetween^ I two^ Iother^ I types^ Iof^ Iattachment. [4 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 4 Level Marks Description 2 3 – 4 Distinction Ibetween Itwo Itypes Iof Iattachment Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Iaccurate, Iwith Ievidence Iof Ieither Ibreadth Ior Idetail. IThe Ianswer Iis Imostly Icoherent Iwith Ieffective Iuse Iof Iterminology. 1 1 – 2 There Iis Ilimited/partial Idistinction Ibetween Itwo Itypes Iof Iattachment. IThe Ianswer Imay Ilack Icoherence. IUse Iof Iterminology Imay Ibe Ieither Iabsent Ior Iinappropriate. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent:

• secure Iattachment/Type IB Ishows Imoderate Ilevels Iof Istranger Ianxiety Iwhereas Iinsecure-avoidant/Type IA Ishows Ilow Ilevels
• Type IB Ishows Imoderate Ilevels Iof Iseparation Ianxiety Iwhereas IType IA Ishows Ilow Ilevels
• Type IB Ishows Ijoy Ion Ireunion Iwhereas IType IA Ishows Ilittle Iresponse
• Type IB Ishows Iuse Iof Iattachment Ifigure Ias Ia Isafe Ibase Iwhereas IType IA Ishows Ihigh Ilevels Iof Iindependent Ibehaviour
• credit Idistinctions Ibased Ion Iother Itypes Iof Iattachment, Ieg Idisorganised; Idisinhibited. No Imarks I for Isimply Inaming Itwo I(other) Itypes Iof Iattachment. Full Imarks Ican Ibe Iawarded Iif Itwo Itypes Iin I(ii) Iare Idifferent Ifrom Ian Iincorrect Ianswer Iin I(i). ICredit Iother Irelevant Idistinction Ipoints.

Studies Iof Iattachment Ioften Iinvolve Inaturalistic Iobservations. Suggest I one I way Iin Iwhich Istudies Iof Iattachment Icould Ibe Iimproved Iby Iusing Icontrolled Iobservations. [3 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO3 I= I 3 3 Imarks I for Ia Iclear, Ielaborated Isuggestion Iof Ione Iway Istudies Iof Iattachment Icould Ibe Iimproved Iby Iusing Icontrolled Irather Ithan Inaturalistic Iobservations. 2 Imarks I for Ia Isuggestion Iwith Isome Ielaboration. 1 mark I for Ia Ilimited Ior Imuddled Isuggestion. Possible Ireasons:

• controlled Iobservations Ican Iminimise Iextraneous Ivariables
• controlled Iobservations Iare Ilikely Ito Ihave Istandardised Iprocedures, Iso Ireliability/replication Iis Imore Iof Ia Ipossibility Ithan Iin Inaturalistic Iobservations
• cause Iand Ieffect Irelationships Iare Ieasier Ito Iestablish Ithan Iin Ia Inaturalistic Iobservation. Credit Iother Irelevant Iways. Credit Ireference Ito Iresearch Iexamples, Ieg IAinsworth, Iif Ithey Isupport Isuggestion. IIf Imore Ithan Ione Iway Iis Ipresented Icredit Ithe Ibest Ione.

Discuss Iresearch Iinto Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iin Ihumans. [16 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I6, IAO3 I= I 10 Level Marks Description 4 13 – 16 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iis Iaccurate Iand Igenerally Iwell Idetailed. IDiscussion Iis Ithorough Iand Ieffective. IMinor Idetail Iand/or Iexpansion Iof Iargument Iis Isometimes Ilacking. IThe Ianswer Iis Iclear, Icoherent Iand Ifocused. Specialist Iterminology Iis Iused Ieffectively. 3 9 – 12 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iis Ievident Ibut Ithere Iare Ioccasional Iinaccuracies/omissions. IDiscussion Iis Imostly Ieffective. IThe Ianswer Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Iorganised Ibut Ioccasionally Ilacks Ifocus. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iappropriately. 2 5 – 8 Limited Iknowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iis Ipresent. IFocus Iis Imainly Ion Idescription. IAny Idiscussion Iis Iof Ilimited Ieffectiveness. IThe Ianswer Ilacks Iclarity, Iaccuracy Iand Iorganisation Iin Iplaces. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iinappropriately Ion Ioccasions. 1 1 – 4 Knowledge Iof Iresearch Iinto Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iis Ivery Ilimited. IDiscussion Iis Ilimited, Ipoorly Ifocused Ior Iabsent. IThe Ianswer Ias Ia Iwhole Ilacks Iclarity, Ihas Imany Iinaccuracies Iand Iis Ipoorly Iorganised. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Ieither Iabsent Ior Iinappropriately Iused. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent:

• description Iof Ifeatures Iof Icaregiver-infant Iinteraction Iin Ihumans: Ireciprocity I– Itwo-way Iinteraction Ibetween Icaregiver Iand Ichild/turn-taking/mirroring; Iinteractional Isynchrony I– Isimultaneous Ico-ordinated Isequence Iof Imovements, Icommunication, Iemotions
• accept Iother Irelevant Ifeatures, Ieg Iimitation; Ibaby Italk Iregister/‘motherese’
• examples Iof Ifeatures
• description Iof Ievidence Iof Ifeatures, Ieg IIsabella Iet Ial; IMurray Iand ITrevarthan; ICondon Iand ISander; IMeltzoff Iand IMoore. Note : Ithat Ithe Iterm I‘research’ Imay Iinclude Itheories/explanations Iand/or Istudies. Possible Idiscussion:
• use Iof Ievidence Ito Isupport Ior Icontradict Ifeatures
• use Iof Icontrolled Iobservations Ito Icapture Imicro-sequences
• infant’s Iintention Iis Idifficult Ito Idetermine
• the Ipurpose Iof Isynchrony Iand Ireciprocity Iin Iattachment Iis Idifficult Ito Idiscern
• research Iis Isocially Isensitive I– Iimpact Ion Iworking Imothers. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. Material Ifrom Iother Iparts Iof Ithe Ispecification Ican Ionly Ibe Icredited Iif Ithere Iis Ia Ispecific Ifocus Ion Icaregiver-infant Iinteractions Iin Ihumans.

Section ID IPsychopatholog y Briefly Ievaluate Ithe Ideviation Ifrom Iideal Imental Ihealth Idefinition Iof Iabnormality. [4 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO3 I= I 4 Level Marks Description 2 3 – 4 Evaluation Iis Irelevant, Igenerally Iwell-explained Iand Ifocused Ion Ithe Ideviation Ifrom Iideal Imental Ihealth Idefinition. IThe Ianswer Iis Igenerally Icoherent Iwith Ieffective Iuse Iof Ispecialist Iterminology. 1 1 – 2 Evaluation Iis Irelevant Ialthough Ithere Iis Ilimited Iexplanation Iand/or Ilimited Ifocus Ion Ithe Ideviation Ifrom Iideal Imental Ihealth Idefinition. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Inot Ialways Iused Iappropriately Ior Iis Iabsent. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Ievaluation:

• comprehensive Icriteria Ifor Imental Ihealth
• based Ion Isimilar Imodels Iof Iphysical Ihealth I– Ibut Imental Ihealth Imay Inot Ibe Ithe Isame
• criteria Iare Itoo Idemanding I– Imost Iof Ius Iwould Ibe Idefined Ias Iunhealthy
• Western Iindividualist Ibias. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. Outline I two I cognitive Icharacteristics Iof Iobsessive-compulsive Idisorder. [4 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I 4 For Ieach Icharacteristic Iaward Imarks Ias Ifollows: 2 marks I for Ia Iclear, Icoherent Icognitive Icharacteristic. I 1 Imark I for Ia Ilimited, Imuddled Icognitive Icharacteristic. I Possible Icharacteristics:
• obsessive Ithoughts I– Ipersistent Iand Iintrusive Ithoughts Iof, Ieg Igerms
• hypervigilance/selective Iattention I– Iincreased Iawareness Iof Isource Iof Iobsession Iin Inew Isituations
• insight Iinto Iirrationality Iof Ithoughts/behaviour
• cognitive Istrategies Ito Ideal Iwith Iobsessions. Award I 1 Imark I only Ifor Itwo Icognitive Icharacteristics Ijust Inamed. IAccept Iother Ivalid Icharacteristics.

Discuss Ithe Itwo-process Imodel Iof Iphobias. IRefer Ito IMax’s Iphobia Iof Ithe Isea Iin IyourIanswer. [16 Imarks] Marks Ifor Ithis Iquestion: IAO1 I= I6, IAO2 I= I4, IAO3 I= I 6 Level Marks Description 4 13 – 16 Knowledge Iof Ithe Itwo-process Imodel Iis Iaccurate Iand Igenerally Iwell Idetailed. IApplication Iis Ieffective. IDiscussion Iis Ithorough Iand Ieffective. IMinor Idetail Iand/or Iexpansion Iof Iargument Iis Isometimes Ilacking. IThe Ianswer Iis Iclear, Icoherent Iand Ifocused. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Ieffectively. 3 9 – 12 Knowledge Iof Ithe Itwo-process Imodel Iis Ievident Ibut Ithere Iare Ioccasional Iinaccuracies/omissions. IApplication Iand/or Idiscussion Iis Imostly Ieffective. IThe Ianswer Iis Imostly Iclear Iand Iorganised Ibut Ioccasionally Ilacks Ifocus. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iappropriately. 2 5 – 8 Limited Iknowledge Iof Ithe Itwo-process Imodel Iis Ipresent. IFocus Iis Imainly Ion Idescription. IAny Idiscussion Iand/or Iapplication Iis Iof Ilimited Ieffectiveness. IThe Ianswer Ilacks Iclarity, Iaccuracy Iand Iorganisation Iin Iplaces. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Iused Iinappropriately Ion Ioccasions. 1 1 – 4 Knowledge Iof Ithe Itwo-process Imodel Iis Ivery Ilimited. IDiscussion Iand/or Iapplication Iis Ilimited, Ipoorly Ifocused Ior Iabsent. IThe Ianswer Ias Ia Iwhole Ilacks Iclarity, Ihas Imany Iinaccuracies Iand Iis Ipoorly Iorganised. ISpecialist Iterminology Iis Ieither Iabsent Ior Iinappropriately Iused. 0 No Irelevant Icontent. Possible Icontent:

• development Iof Iphobia Ithrough Iclassical Iconditioning I– Iassociation Iof Ifear/anxiety Iwith Ineutral Istimulus Ito Iproduce Iconditioned Iresponse; Iassumes Iexperience Iof Itraumatic Ievent; Igeneralisation Iof Ifear Ito Iother Isimilar Iobjects; Ione Itrial Ilearning
• maintenance Iof Ifear Ithrough Ioperant Iconditioning I– Iavoidance Iof Iphobic Iobject/situation Iis Inegatively Ireinforcing; Irelief Ias Ireward/primary Ireinforcer. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. Possible Iapplication:
• Max’s Iphobia Ihas Ideveloped Ithrough Iclassical Iconditioning I– Iassociation Iformed Ibetween Ithe Ineutral Istimulus I(sea) Iand Ithe Ifearful Ievent I(being Icarried Iaway Iby Ithe Itide)
• the Iconditioned Iresponse Iis Itriggered Ievery Itime IMax Iis Inear Ithe Isea
• phobia Ihas Igeneralised Ito Iall I‘beach Iholidays’
• phobia Iis Imaintained Ithrough Ioperant Iconditioning I– Iavoidance Iof Ifear Iis Ireinforcing, Iso IMax Iavoids Ithe Ibeach. Possible Idiscussion:
• use Iof Ievidence Ito Isupport/contradict Ithe Itwo-process Imodel, Ieg IWatson Iand IRayner, IDiNardo Iet Ial
• not Iall Iphobias Iare Ithe Iresult Iof Itrauma
• alternative Ievolutionary Iexplanations Ifor Imore Icommon Iphobias, Ieg Ipreparedness
• behavioural Iapproach Iignores Icognitive Iaspects Iof Iphobias
• alternative Iexplanations Ifor Iavoidance, Ieg Isafety
• behavioural Iprinciples Iunderpin Itherapies Ibased Ion Icounterconditioning, Ieg Isystematic Idesensitisation. Accept Iother Ivalid Ipoints. IOnly Icredit Ievaluation Iof Ithe Imethodology Iused Iin Istudies Iwhen Imade Irelevant Ito Ithe Idiscussion Iof Ithe Iexplanations.

Assessment IObjective IGrid AO1 AO2 AO3 Total Social IInfluence 01 1 02 4 03 3 I(RM) 04 6 4 6 Total 7 11 6 24 Memory 05 3 06 1 I(RM) 07 3 I(RM/maths) /strand I 2 08 3 09 6 10 3 5 Total 9 6 9 24 Attachment 11.1 1 11.2 4 12 3 I(RM/strand

13 6 10 Total 10 1 13 24 Psychopathology 14 4 15 4 16 6 4 6 Total 10 4 10 24 Paper ITotal 36 22 38 96