OxfordAQA International A-level Psychology (9685): 3.4.3 Applied psychology: work and the individual – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover section 3.4.3 Applied psychology: work and the individual in the OxfordAQA International AS and A-level Psychology (9685) specification, Version 3.1 (International A-level exams May/June 2020 onwards). It is assessed in Section C (30 marks) of Unit 4: Approaches and application, a 1 hour 30 minute written exam worth 90 marks. All companies, people and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the work and the individual study guide and the work and the individual revision notes. The 9685 course hub and 9685 checklist list every other unit.

Questions

1. Group processes.

(a) Define social loafing. [2] (b) Explain the difference between risky shift and group polarisation. [2]

2. A fictional warehouse, Tarrow Packing, records output only as team totals. The manager calculated mean parcels packed per worker per hour for different team sizes.

Team size	Mean parcels per worker per hour
1 (working alone)	40
3	36
6	32
10	29

(a) Calculate the percentage fall in parcels per worker from working alone to a team of 10. Show your working. [2] (b) Explain the pattern in the table using research into social loafing. [4] (c) Suggest two changes the manager could make to reduce the fall. Justify each one. [4]

3. At a fictional café, Hollin Street Coffee, an experienced barista works faster when customers watch, while a new trainee makes more mistakes. Explain these observations using Zajonc’s drive theory of social facilitation. [4]

4. The five directors of a fictional company, Pellow Outdoor, are close friends of many years. At a vote on opening ten new shops, the chief executive began by saying she was certain expansion was right. The finance director had doubts about the costs but said nothing. The marketing director asked a junior analyst to hold back her critical report until after the vote. Several directors said, “Our customers will follow us anywhere.”

(a) Identify and explain two symptoms of groupthink shown in this meeting. [4] (b) Suggest one way the company could reduce the risk of groupthink at future meetings. Justify your answer. [2]

5. A fictional bank opens an anonymous online forum for its staff. Some threads about pay become abusive. A thread raising money for a local hospital becomes very generous. Use research into deindividuation to explain why anonymity produced both kinds of behaviour. [4]

6. At a fictional firm, Corvane Engineering, a newly arrived manager stands about 60 cm from colleagues when talking to them. Several colleagues, raised in a different country, keep stepping back.

(a) Use research into personal space to explain the colleagues’ behaviour. [3] (b) Outline one piece of evidence that facial expressions of emotion are universal, and one limitation of this claim. [3]

7. Dara, a fictional team leader, e-mails a colleague as a joke: “Brilliant, another late report. Keep it up.” The colleague is hurt, and Dara is surprised. Use research into the effects of e-mail communication to explain what happened. [6]

8. Imran, a fictional employee, chooses between two options. His expectancy theory scores (0 to 1) are below.

Option	Expectancy	Instrumentality	Valence
A: leadership course leading to promotion	0.8	0.5	0.9
B: weekend overtime for a bonus	0.9	0.9	0.4

(a) Calculate the motivational force for each option. [2] (b) State which option expectancy theory predicts Imran will choose, and explain why option B’s high expectancy and instrumentality do not make it the choice. [2] (c) Imran’s family then needs extra money, and the valence of option B rises to 0.6. What does expectancy theory now predict? Show your working. [2]

9. Motivation and job satisfaction.

(a) A sales manager tells her team, “Try to do better this quarter.” Use goal-setting theory to rewrite this goal and explain your changes. [4] (b) Classify variety, pay and personal control as additional decrement (AD) or constant effect (CE) features in Warr’s vitamin model, and explain why the model predicts that too much personal control could lower well-being. [3]

10. Two fictional firms, Rennick and Hale, have merged. A year later, staff still sit in separate areas, call each other “Rennick people” and “Hale people”, and each side complains the other gets the best projects. Evaluate social identity theory as an explanation of this conflict. [8]

11. A researcher collected these fictional data from four wards at Linmouth General, a fictional hospital. Exhaustion was measured on a 0 to 30 scale (higher means more exhausted).

Ward	Job demands	Job resources	Mean exhaustion score
1	High	Low	24
2	High	High	15
3	Low	Low	13
4	Low	High	10

(a) Calculate how much higher mean exhaustion is on high-demand wards than low-demand wards, first when resources are low and then when resources are high. [2] (b) Explain how these data support the job demands-resources (J D-R) model, and give one reason for caution in interpreting them. [4]

12. Discuss research into the effects of workload and control on workplace stress. Refer to the job demands-resources (J D-R) model in your answer. [16]

Answers

1. (a) A reduction in the effort an individual puts in [1] when working with others on a task where contributions are pooled, so their own input cannot be identified [1]. [2] (b) Risky shift is when a group’s decision is riskier than the average of members’ private decisions [1]. Group polarisation is a shift further in whatever direction the group already leaned, which can be cautious, so risky shift is one form of it [1]. [2] Examiner insight: A distinction mark needs both terms defined and the link between them stated, not two separate definitions side by side.

2. (a) (40 − 29) ÷ 40 × 100 [1] = 27.5% [1]. [2] (b) Output per worker falls as team size rises, from 40 alone to 29 in a team of 10 [1]. This fits social loafing: only team totals are recorded, so no one’s own effort is visible [1]. Ingham et al. found a similar drop when others only pretended to pull, so the fall is likely motivational, not just coordination loss [1]. The collective effort model predicts each of 10 workers feels their effort barely changes the total [1]. [4] (c) Record each worker’s own count [1], because loafing falls when contributions are identifiable [1]. Use smaller teams [1], because each person’s effort matters more, and the table shows the smallest fall at size 3 [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Quote the table’s figures; a general account of loafing without them loses the application marks.

3. An audience raises arousal [1], which makes the dominant, best-learned response more likely [1]. For the barista this is the practised correct routine, so speed improves [1]. For the trainee the task is new, so the dominant response is often an error [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Full marks need both people explained; covering only the improvement treats facilitation as always positive.

4. (a) Self-censorship [1]: the finance director kept his doubts about costs to himself to preserve agreement [1]. Mindguard [1]: the marketing director stopped the analyst’s critical report reaching the group before the vote [1]. (Also creditworthy: illusion of invulnerability, “our customers will follow us anywhere”.) [4] (b) Appoint a devil’s advocate [1], so objections become an expected role and doubts like the finance director’s are voiced, not self-censored [1]. (Also creditworthy: the leader speaks last, or outside experts review proposals.) [2] Examiner insight: Each symptom mark needs a named symptom and the specific person or event from the scenario that shows it.

5. Classic deindividuation theory says anonymity lowers self-awareness and accountability, explaining the abusive pay threads [1]. But it predicts only antisocial behaviour, so cannot explain the charity thread [1]. The SIDE model says anonymity makes group identity salient, so people follow the local group norm: hostile on pay, generous for charity [1]. Johnson and Downing (1979) support this: nurse uniforms reduced shocks, Klan-style robes increased them [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Questions with two contrasting behaviours reward an explanation that accounts for both; a classic-only answer caps itself.

6. (a) In Hall’s zones, 60 cm is personal distance, used with friends rather than new colleagues [1]. Preferences differ by culture: Sorokowska et al. (2017) found preferred distance from strangers was over 120 cm in some countries and under 90 cm in others [1]. If the colleagues’ culture prefers more space, 60 cm feels intrusive, so they step back to restore comfort [1]. [3] (b) Ekman and Friesen (1971) found that the Fore people of Papua New Guinea matched facial expressions to emotional stories [1], even though they had little exposure to Western media, so they could not have learned the expressions from it [1]. Limitation: Jack et al. (2012) found that Eastern participants did not represent the six basic emotions with distinct facial movements, unlike Western participants [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Link the cultural evidence to the stepping back; naming Hall’s zones alone earns little.

7. E-mail lacks non-verbal cues, such as tone and a smile, that would have signalled the joke [1], so the words read as real criticism [1]. Egocentrism: Dara “heard” her own joking tone and struggled to take her colleague’s view [1]. Kruger et al. (2005) found people overestimate how well they convey tone by e-mail, explaining her surprise [1]. E-mail also lacks instant feedback [1]: face to face, Dara would have seen the hurt and corrected it at once [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The specification names three e-mail effects; top answers tie cues, egocentrism and feedback to Dara.

8. (a) A: 0.8 × 0.5 × 0.9 = 0.36 [1]. B: 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.4 = 0.324 [1]. [2] (b) Option A, because it has the higher motivational force [1]. The terms are multiplied, so B’s low valence pulls its force down despite high expectancy and instrumentality [1]. [2] (c) B = 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.6 = 0.486 [1], which is now higher than A’s 0.36, so the theory predicts Imran will choose overtime [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Show each multiplication; a final number alone cannot gain the method mark if it is wrong.

9. (a) Rewrite: “Raise your personal sales by 15% by the end of March, with a weekly progress chart.” [1]. It is specific, which raises performance more than “do your best” goals [1]. It is challenging but reachable, supporting commitment [1]. The chart adds feedback, so staff can adjust effort [1]. [4] (b) Variety and personal control are AD features [1]; pay is a CE feature [1]. Like an excess of vitamins A or D, very high control means constant decisions and responsibility, which becomes a burden and lowers well-being [1]. [3] Examiner insight: In rewrite questions, the explanation marks go to naming the principle each change applies, not to the new wording itself.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these points show the indicative content. Social identity theory says part of the self-concept comes from group membership [1]. Staff categorise themselves as “Rennick” or “Hale” [1], identify with their old firm [1], and compare it favourably with the other side to protect self-esteem [1]. The separate seating and complaints show in-group favouritism and out-group bias [1]. Support: Tajfel et al. (1971) found people favoured their own group even when groups were trivial [1]. Limitation: minimal groups are artificial, while these staff may be competing for real projects and jobs [1]. The theory suggests building a shared identity for the merged firm, but is weaker at predicting when favouritism becomes hostility [1]. [8] Examiner insight: “Evaluate” needs a judgement weighing minimal group evidence against the scenario’s real stakes.

11. (a) Low resources: 24 − 13 = 11 [1]. High resources: 15 − 10 = 5 [1]. [2] (b) High demands go with more exhaustion at both resource levels, fitting the health-impairment process [1]. The demands effect is smaller when resources are high (5 against 11), fitting buffering [1]. Exhaustion peaks where high demands meet low resources (24), as Bakker, Demerouti and Euwema (2005) found [1]. Caution: the data are correlational and wards may differ in other ways, such as patient type [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Buffering is shown by comparing the two differences, not by quoting a single ward’s score.

12. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these points show the indicative content. Workload can be overload or underload [1]. Karasek’s (1979) demand-control model says high demands plus low decision latitude is most stressful [1]. Whitehall II followed 10,308 London civil servants [1]. Bosma et al. (1997) found low job control predicted new coronary heart disease (odds ratio 1.93 for low control at both measurements) [1]. Job demands were not related to risk [1]. Marmot et al. (1997) found low control contributed most to higher heart disease in lower grades [1]. The J D-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) separates demands, which need sustained effort, from resources, which help achieve goals or reduce demands [1]. It proposes health-impairment and motivational processes [1]. Bakker, Demerouti and Euwema (2005) found resources buffered demands for exhaustion and cynicism [1]. Evaluation: Whitehall II is large and longitudinal, so control was measured before illness [1]. But it studied office workers in one country, largely by self-report [1]. That demands did not predict heart disease challenges a workload-only view; control matters more [1]. The J D-R model is broader than Karasek’s [1], but its flexibility makes it hard to falsify [1]. Buffering did not hold for professional efficacy, so support is partial [1]. Judgement: employers should raise control and resources, not only cut workload [1]. [16] Examiner insight: Strong essays separate workload from control and use the Whitehall II demands finding as evaluation, not description.

Where marks are usually lost

• Calculations with no working, so a slip loses every mark.
• Social facilitation answers that explain improvement only and ignore worse performance on new tasks.
• Naming groupthink symptoms without pointing to the person or event in the scenario.
• Treating deindividuation as always antisocial, which cannot explain prosocial behaviour.
• E-mail answers that stop at “no body language” and miss egocentrism and feedback.
• Adding the expectancy terms instead of multiplying them.
• Stress essays that claim workload alone causes illness, contradicting the Whitehall II findings.
• Extended answers with description but no judgement.

Next steps

• Check your weaker areas with a free diagnostic.
• For Unit 1 practice, try the 9685 Unit 1 practice questions.
• Want a teacher to mark your essays? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

OxfordAQA International AS and A-level Psychology (9685) specification, Version 3.1 (International A-level exams May/June 2020 onwards). Section 3.4.3 Applied psychology: Work and the individual; assessed in Unit 4: Approaches and application, Section C.