LEVELS OF RESPONSE – LEVEL DESCRIPTORS AO1 AO2 AO3 Good Response demonstrates good relevant knowledge and understanding. Accurate and detailed description. Response demonstrates good application of psychological knowledge and understanding. Application will be mainly explicit, accurate and relevant. Response demonstrates good analysis, interpretation and/or evaluation that is mainly relevant to the demand of the question. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and argument is highly skilled and shows good understanding. Reasonable Response demonstrates reasonable relevant knowledge and understanding. Generally accurate description lacking some detail. Response demonstrates reasonable application of psychological knowledge and understanding. Application will be partially explicit, accurate and relevant. Response demonstrates reasonable analysis, interpretation and/or evaluation that is partially relevant to the demand of the question. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and argument are competent and understanding is reasonable. Limited Response demonstrates limited relevant knowledge and understanding. Limited description lacking in detail. Response demonstrates limited application of psychological knowledge and understanding. Application may be related to the general topic area rather than the specific question. Response demonstrates limited analysis, interpretation and/or evaluation that may be related to topic area. Some valid conclusions that summarise issues and arguments. Basic Response demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding that is only partially relevant. Basic description with no detail. Response demonstrates basic application of psychological knowledge and understanding. Responses will be generalised lacking focus on the question. Response demonstrates basic analysis, interpretation and/or evaluation that is not related to the question. Basic or no valid conclusions that attempt to summarise issues. No evidence of arguments.
13 * investigation. applying the chosen experimental method to the investigation, e.g. the environment will be controlled by ensuring there are no other distractions apart from the task itself applying the chosen experimental design to the investigation, e.g. half of the participants will be tested without the task first while the other half will be tested whilst doing the task first identifying an appropriate extraneous variable, e.g. the time given to complete the language test could affect the results outlining how a chosen extraneous variable would be controlled, e.g. all participants will be asked if their first language was English. AO3 – 2 Marks Broad discussion of design decisions Candidates will demonstrate an ability to develop design and procedures through the justification of these decisions – this is likely to be one mark for each decision which is adequately justified but a justification may earn all four marks e.g. giving the various advantages of an independent groups design. There are no additional marks for contextualising the justification of the chosen experiment and design but a good answer should include this at points. Other appropriate responses should be credited. experiments and of an appropriate experimental design and control(s). Reasonable application of knowledge and understanding to the design of the investigation. Reasonable justification of design Most if not all of the required features are addressed and the candidate demonstrates reasonably accurate knowledge of each. There is some evidence of application in the description of features showing a level of understanding. There is likely to be some appropriate justification of decisions and, at points, this is contextualised with reference to the investigation brief. There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence. The response draws on the candidates own experience and there are some links between the planned investigation and the practical activity carried out. Level 2: 4 - 6 marks Reasonable knowledge and understanding of field or laboratory experiments and of an appropriate experimental design and control(s). Limited application of knowledge and understanding to the design of the investigation. Limited justification of design At least some of the required features are addressed and the candidate demonstrates knowledge of these. There is limited evidence of application in the description of techniques showing basic understanding. There may be an attempt to justify decisions but it is likely to be weak. The information has some relevance and is presented with limited structure. The developed
Question Answer Marks Guidance Section D: Core studies 18 (a) Suggest one weakness of the sample used by Loftus and Palmers’ study into eyewitness testimony Most likely answers: zxzx 2 AO1 1b 2 marks – A clear and contextualized weakness 1 mark – vague or partial answer 0 marks – No creditworthy response. 19 (b) Outline two criticisms of the Loftus and Palmer study. Most likely answers: 4 AO3 1a 2 marks – A clear and contextualised criticism. 1 mark – Vague or partial answer, i.e. the answer has not been contextualised to the material. 0 marks – No creditworthy response. 20 20 From Bocchiaro et al.’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing: Outline how participants responded to an unethical request from the experimenter. Most likely answers: Bocchiaro found that the majority of participants complied with the unethical request made by the unjust experimenter/authority figure. Bocchiaro found that only a minority of participants were prepared to disobey the unethical request made by the unjust experimenter. Bocchiaro found that only a minority of participants were prepared to become a ‘whistleblower’ (and report the misconduct of the experimenter to higher authorities). Other appropriate descriptions should be credited. 2 AO1 1a 2 AO1 1a 2 marks – A clear outline of Bocchiaro’s findings, e.g. Bocchiaro found that the majority of participants were obedient and complied with the unethical request (of the experimenter), i.e. answer contextualised to the study through reference to an unethical request. 1 mark – Vague or partial answer, e.g. Bocchiaro found that the majority of participants were obedient, i.e. no contextualisation. 0 marks – No creditworthy response. 21 From Milgram’s study of obedience: Describe TWO 4 Up to 2 marks for each way participants were deceived in