Approaches, Issues and Debates: 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 available free from your board.

Related: Approaches, Issues and Debates revision notes

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) Paper 1, Approaches, Issues and Debates, is a 1 hour 30 minute, 60-mark paper in two sections: Section A, short answer questions based on the core studies (38 marks), and Section B, extended response questions, which may ask for comparison between studies and will require evaluation of a study (22 marks). The set below follows those two sections and their mark totals; the individual questions and tariffs are Marlbridge’s own.

---

Section A — short answer questions (38 marks)

1. Outline one main assumption of the learning approach. [2]

2. Saavedra and Silverman studied a child with a phobia of buttons.

(a) Identify the research method used in this study. [1] (b) Explain one weakness of this research method, using this study as an example. [2]

3. Dement and Kleitman investigated the relationship between rapid eye movements (REM) and dreaming.

(a) Describe how the researchers found out whether a participant had been dreaming. [2] (b) Explain one reason why the findings of this study may lack ecological validity. [2]

4. Milgram investigated obedience.

(a) Explain why Milgram’s main study is described as having a dependent variable but no independent variable. [2] (b) Outline one ethical issue raised by this study. [2]

5. Piliavin et al. carried out a field experiment on a New York subway train.

(a) Outline what is meant by diffusion of responsibility. [2] (b) Describe one difference in helping behaviour between the conditions of this study. [2]

6. Andrade investigated whether doodling helps concentration and memory.

(a) Describe what participants in the doodling condition were asked to do. [2] (b) Explain how the findings of this study could be applied to everyday life. [2]

7. Fagen et al. trained working elephants to take part in a trunk wash. Using this study, explain the difference between a primary reinforcer and a secondary reinforcer. [4]

8. Bandura et al. observed young children after they had watched an adult model. Explain one ethical issue raised by the use of children in this study. [2]

9. Explain how the study by Hassett et al. relates to the nature versus nurture debate. [3]

10. Outline one strength of using MRI scans to measure the effects of mindfulness in the study by Hölzel et al. [2]

11. In the study by Perry et al., some participants were given oxytocin and some a placebo. Explain why a placebo condition was used. [2]

12. Pozzulo et al. tested children and adults using line-ups of cartoon and human faces. Explain what is meant by a false positive response in a target-absent line-up. [2]

13. Baron-Cohen et al. revised the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ Test. Outline what the test measures. [2]

---

Section B — extended response questions (22 marks)

14. (a) Evaluate the study by Piliavin et al. in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of a field experiment. [10]

(b) “Psychological research should not use animals.” With reference to the studies by Hassett et al. and Fagen et al., evaluate this statement. [12]

---

Answers

1. Any one, fully outlined: we all begin life as a blank slate, and experiences and interactions with the environment shape our behaviour, so changes in behaviour are directly observable [1] [1]; or we learn through operant conditioning, classical conditioning and social learning [1], which can be understood using the stimulus–response model [1].

2. (a) A case study [1]. (b) One weakness, explained and linked to the study: a case study examines one individual, so findings may not generalise [1] — the treatment that worked for one child’s button phobia, which had a particular origin, may not work for other children with the same or a different phobia [1]. (Also creditable: data from interviews and the child’s own ratings may be affected by social desirability or by the researchers’ interpretation, linked to this child.)

3. (a) Participants’ eye movements and brain activity were recorded with EEG while they slept [1]; they were woken at intervals (for example by a doorbell) during REM or non-REM sleep and asked to describe any dream into a recording device, without speaking to the experimenter first [1]. (b) The study took place in a sleep laboratory with electrodes attached to the face and scalp [1], so participants’ sleep and dreaming may differ from sleep at home, and being woken repeatedly is not how people normally sleep [1].

4. (a) A dependent variable was measured — the level of obedience, as the maximum voltage each participant was prepared to give [1] — but no variable was manipulated between conditions in the main study, because every participant experienced the same procedure [1]. (b) One ethical issue outlined and linked: participants were deceived about the purpose of the study and about the shocks being real [1], or they experienced psychological harm such as extreme stress, sweating and nervous laughter [1]; or the prods made the right to withdraw difficult to exercise [1]. Second mark for linking the issue to what happened in the study [1].

5. (a) When several people witness an emergency, each feels less personal responsibility to act [1] because the responsibility is shared among all the bystanders, so each is less likely to help [1]. (b) One difference described: the victim carrying a cane (apparently ill) received spontaneous help far more often than the victim who appeared drunk [1]; for example, the cane victim was helped on almost every trial, while the drunk victim was helped on about half of trials [1]. (Also creditable: the drunk victim was more likely to be helped by someone of the same race than the cane victim was.)

6. (a) Participants in the doodling condition shaded printed shapes on a sheet of paper [1] while listening to a monotonous recorded telephone message and noting the names of people coming to a party [1]. (b) One application, explained: doodling may help people maintain attention during dull tasks [1], so people in long meetings or lectures, or students in class, could be allowed to doodle rather than being discouraged from it [1].

7. A primary reinforcer satisfies a biological need and is rewarding in itself [1], for example the food rewards given to the elephants [1]. A secondary reinforcer has no value in itself but becomes rewarding by being associated with a primary reinforcer [1], for example the signal used to mark the correct behaviour, which was paired with food so that it told the elephant immediately that a reward would follow [1].

8. One issue explained and linked: children cannot give informed consent themselves [1], so consent had to come from adults, and the children could not understand that they would watch aggressive behaviour; or exposing young children to an adult hitting a doll may cause distress or leave them more aggressive afterwards, which is psychological harm [1]. Second mark for the link to the study [1].

9. Rhesus monkeys are assumed to be less affected by socialisation than children [1]. Male monkeys showed a stronger preference for stereotypically boys’ (wheeled) toys over stereotypically girls’ (plush) toys, similar to children [1]. This suggests sex differences in toy preference may be partly due to nature (for example hormones) rather than only nurture, since the monkeys had not been taught gender stereotypes [1].

10. One strength outlined: MRI gives an objective, quantitative measure of brain structure [1], so changes in grey matter could be compared before and after the mindfulness programme without relying only on self-report [1]. (Also creditable: it is non-invasive; scans can be repeated to allow the longitudinal before-and-after design.)

11. A placebo was used to control for expectations [1]: participants in both conditions received a nasal spray, so any difference in preferred interpersonal distance could be attributed to the oxytocin itself rather than to the experience of being given a substance [1].

12. In a target-absent line-up the culprit is not present [1]; a false positive response is when the witness identifies someone from the line-up anyway, choosing an innocent person rather than saying the culprit is not there [1].

13. It measures theory of mind — the ability to attribute mental states to other people [1] — by asking participants to choose which word best describes what a person is thinking or feeling from a photograph of their eyes [1].

14. (a) Mark as a levels-based evaluation: up to 2 marks for each of four points, plus 2 for quality of evaluation (clear, well-developed, each point applied to the study rather than to field experiments in general). Strengths (examples): high ecological validity — real passengers on a real subway journey, so behaviour is likely to reflect real helping [2]; large sample of passengers across many trials, making the results more reliable [2]; standardised procedure — the victim collapsed at the same point in each journey and behaved the same way [2]. Weaknesses (examples): as a field experiment there was less control over extraneous variables, such as how crowded the carriage was [2]; ethical issues — passengers did not consent, were deceived and may have been distressed, and could not be debriefed [2]; observational data may be affected by observer bias or by observers missing behaviour in a busy carriage [2]. At least one point must address the field experiment; if none does, maximum 8.

(b) Mark by levels:

• 10–12: a well-organised, balanced evaluation using both studies in detail; considers arguments for and against animal research (ethics, generalisation to humans, welfare benefits); reaches a reasoned conclusion.
• 7–9: evaluation using both studies with some detail; some balance; a conclusion is given.
• 4–6: some relevant points, possibly limited to one study or one side; limited evaluation.
• 1–3: basic, mainly descriptive points with little reference to the studies.
• 0: no creditable response. Indicative content: against animal use — ethical cost to animals kept for research; findings from rhesus monkeys (Hassett et al.) may not generalise to children, whose toy preferences are strongly shaped by socialisation. For animal use — Hassett et al. used animals precisely because monkeys are less affected by socialisation, allowing a test of biological influence that could not be done with children; Fagen et al. used positive reinforcement, which benefited the elephants’ welfare and provided an alternative to harsh traditional training, so the research improved the animals’ treatment. A strong answer distinguishes research that harms animals from research that benefits them and judges the statement accordingly.

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Placing a core study under the wrong approach, or describing a study from another board’s specification.
• Answering Section A questions in general terms without linking the point to the named core study.
• In Section B, listing strengths and weaknesses of a research method without applying each one to the study.
• Confusing a primary reinforcer with a secondary reinforcer, or negative reinforcement with punishment.
• Saying Milgram’s main study had an independent variable.