Skill Align WACE Psychology ATAR Year 12 - Free Online Pack 0
An independently authored WACE Psychology practice examination with detailed, criterion-level human marking guidance.
- Paper
- Question/Answer Booklet
- Reading
- 10 minutes
- Writing
- 3 hours
- Assessment
- 191 marks attempted (222 authored marks offered)
Standard examination items and up to three calculators that cannot create or store programs or text are permitted under SCSA conditions.
Section One - Short answer
Answer all six questions. Suggested working time: 120 minutes. Section One is worth 134 raw marks and is weighted to 70% of the examination. Psychological knowledge and Science inquiry are integrated throughout.
Question 1
23 marksAt a coastal heritage centre, visitors hear a three-part audio direction while locating symbols on a large wall map. A soft chime signals the relevant map panel. One group receives the direction in a single uninterrupted message; another receives each part immediately before the matching map decision. Both groups see the same map for the same total time.
Question 2
23 marksTrainees at a native-plant nursery study twelve unfamiliar plant labels. One group decides whether each label is printed in capitals, a second decides whether it rhymes with a cue word, and a third decides whether the plant description belongs in a habitat category. The chart shows mean recognition scores one day later. Instructions, study time and label order are standardised, and trainees are randomly allocated.
Question 3
22 marksA rescue-training centre uses an alarm tone immediately before a harmless burst of compressed air in a simulator. Before conditioning, the compressed-air burst automatically produces a startle response. After several pairings, the tone alone produces a startle response. For trainees whose startle disrupts performance, an instructor proposes a voluntary program that teaches relaxation and gradually presents recorded alarms from very low to normal volume without the air burst.
Question 4
22 marksA community garden lets volunteers select one of several equally necessary roles, gives private feedback showing growing competence and organises stable small teams. Some volunteers begin only to obtain service-hour credit, while others later say the garden's environmental purpose has become personally important. Wellbeing is assessed with life-satisfaction ratings, positive and negative affect ratings, and interviews about purpose and relationships.
Question 5
22 marksVolunteer coordinators complete a standardised storm-response simulation. Half receive a resource briefing that lists available personnel and decision steps; half receive neutral venue information. The chart shows mean heart rate at baseline, immediately after the simulation and 20 minutes later. Participants are randomly allocated and assessors use the same timing and instructions.
Question 6
22 marksA boarding-house study randomly allocates 60 consenting students to charge mobile phones in a secure common area from 9.30 pm or to keep their usual routine for three weeks. Researchers record self-reported sleep duration, a morning attention task and an anonymous mood scale. Common-area charging is logged, but usual-routine phone use is not independently verified.
Section Two - Extended answer, Part A
Answer the compulsory Question 7. Suggested working time: 20 minutes. Part A is worth 26 raw marks and is weighted to 10% of the examination.
Question 7
26 marksResponse - Question 7
26 marksWrite your compulsory Part A response in the space below.
Response - Question 7 (continued)
26 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 7 (continued)
26 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 7 (continued)
26 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 7 (continued)
26 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Section Two - Extended answer, Part B
Answer either Question 8 or Question 9. Suggested working time: 40 minutes. Do not answer both. The selected response is worth 31 raw marks and is weighted to 20% of the examination.
Question 8
31 marksQuestion 9
31 marksResponse - Question 9
31 marksTick the question attempted, then write one Part B response only.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Response - Question 9 (continued)
31 marksContinue your response in the space below.
Worked Solutions And Marking Guide
General marking principles
- Award each criterion independently when the required evidence is present; do not require the indicative-response wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning.
- Do not infer causal, diagnostic, cultural or population-wide claims beyond the supplied evidence.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker.
Section One Question 1
(a) Reception and transduction of the sound and light are sensation; selecting, organising and interpreting the message and symbols are perception; encoding converts the perceived direction and map information into a form that can be stored in memory.
Each process has a different role between incoming energy and a stored representation.
(b) The phonological loop temporarily maintains the spoken direction, the visuospatial sketchpad maintains map locations, the central executive directs attention and coordinates the tasks, and the episodic buffer binds the spoken and spatial information into one episode.
All four prescribed components must be applied rather than listed.
(c) Presenting one part near its matching decision reduces simultaneous verbal load and the interval over which details must be maintained, leaving more capacity for coordination with the map.
The prediction must follow from working-memory demand, not from an unsupported claim about intelligence.
(d) The controlled centre task may not generalise to busy outdoor trails. Recording the number of correct map decisions or decision latency would provide a defined behavioural measure.
A limitation and an operationalised outcome are separate decisions.
(e) Selecting a wrong panel differs from making no selection; the combined score hides those different difficulties. Record each visitor and decision with one of the three defined outcome categories. Unequal time could turn a slow but correct decision into a no-response outcome in only one group. A blank may indicate missing observation or a recording failure rather than observed non-response.
Selecting a wrong panel differs from making no selection; the combined score hides those different difficulties. Record each visitor and decision with one of the three defined outcome categories. Unequal time could turn a slow but correct decision into a no-response outcome in only one group. A blank may indicate missing observation or a recording failure rather than observed non-response.
(f) The visual impression is iconic memory. The lingering sound is echoic memory. Iconic information lasts a fraction of a second and echoic information a few seconds; unrehearsed short-term memory generally lasts longer, around 18–30 seconds. Sensory stores briefly hold a large amount of modality-specific information, whereas short-term memory has a limited capacity.
The visual impression is iconic memory. The lingering sound is echoic memory. Iconic information lasts a fraction of a second and echoic information a few seconds; unrehearsed short-term memory generally lasts longer, around 18–30 seconds. Sensory stores briefly hold a large amount of modality-specific information, whereas short-term memory has a limited capacity.
(g) Understanding the direction converts incoming information into a usable memory representation: encoding. Retention across the break is storage. Stating the direction brings stored information into use: retrieval.
Understanding the direction converts incoming information into a usable memory representation: encoding. Retention across the break is storage. Stating the direction brings stored information into use: retrieval.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies sensation as reception or transduction of the auditory or visual energy.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies perception as organising and interpreting the message or map symbols.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Explains encoding as converting perceived direction or map information into a form that can be stored in memory.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Applies the phonological loop to temporary maintenance of the spoken direction.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Applies the visuospatial sketchpad to temporary maintenance of map locations or symbols.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Applies the central executive to directing attention or coordinating the concurrent demands.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Applies the episodic buffer to integrating the auditory and spatial information.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Predicts fewer errors, or an equivalent performance advantage, for the staged-message group.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Explains that staging reduces the amount of verbal information maintained at one time or its maintenance interval.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Links reduced verbal demand to greater capacity for coordinating the direction with the map.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
States a defensible external-validity or task-artificiality limit.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Proposes a measurable outcome such as correct locations, errors or decision latency.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part e (1 mark)
Distinguishes incorrect selection from absence of selection.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Defines a record preserving correct, wrong-panel and no-response outcomes.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Explains why decision time must be standardised.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Distinguishes unrecorded data from a measured lack of response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Identifies iconic memory for the map impression.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Identifies echoic memory for the sound.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Accurately compares the brief sensory durations with unrehearsed short-term memory; accept defensible approximate ranges.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Contrasts large sensory capacity with limited short-term capacity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Applies encoding to the initial processing of the direction.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Applies storage to retention over the break.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Applies retrieval to later reporting.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section One Question 2
(a) Capital-letter decisions use shallow structural processing, rhyme decisions use shallow phonemic processing, and habitat-category decisions use deep semantic processing.
Classification follows what feature of each label is processed.
(b) Mean recognition increases from capital letters to rhyme to habitat meaning. The data support better recognition after deeper semantic processing in this task, not a claim that every learner or all material will show the same result.
The response needs a comparative pattern, a conclusion and a boundary.
(c) Both use orienting decisions that vary processing depth and assess later memory. Craik and Tulving's designated study contributed evidence that semantic processing produces stronger retention than shallower structural or phonemic processing.
The study connection must identify the manipulation, memory outcome and contribution.
(d) Random allocation reduces systematic participant differences between groups, and standardised time, instructions and order reduce procedural alternatives. A small occupational sample or artificial labels can still limit generalisability.
Each design decision must be linked to the inference it strengthens.
(e) The announcement reveals the trainer's expected pattern to that group. Trainees may try harder or respond as they think the trainer wants, independently of semantic encoding. Give all groups the same neutral briefing without predicting a winner. Have an assessor unaware of encoding allocation apply a fixed answer key.
The announcement reveals the trainer's expected pattern to that group. Trainees may try harder or respond as they think the trainer wants, independently of semantic encoding. Give all groups the same neutral briefing without predicting a winner. Have an assessor unaware of encoding allocation apply a fixed answer key.
(f) It conceals eight incorrect familiar judgements, so frequent selection could look like accurate memory. 8 / 12 × 100 = approximately 66.7%. Obviously different alternatives could be rejected without remembering what was studied. Report correct selections and incorrect familiar selections separately, with the number of studied and unstudied opportunities.
It conceals eight incorrect familiar judgements, so frequent selection could look like accurate memory. 8 / 12 × 100 = approximately 66.7%. Obviously different alternatives could be rejected without remembering what was studied. Report correct selections and incorrect familiar selections separately, with the number of studied and unstudied opportunities.
(g) The null pattern may indicate that semantic encoding did not improve delayed recognition in this investigation. A recognition task that is too easy, too difficult or poorly matched to the encoded labels may conceal a real difference. A more sensitive delayed task or item-level performance pattern could show whether the mechanism failed or the measure masked a difference.
The null pattern may indicate that semantic encoding did not improve delayed recognition in this investigation. A recognition task that is too easy, too difficult or poorly matched to the encoded labels may conceal a real difference. A more sensitive delayed task or item-level performance pattern could show whether the mechanism failed or the measure masked a difference.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Classifies the capital-letter decision as shallow structural processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Classifies the rhyme decision as shallow phonemic processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Classifies the habitat-category decision as deep semantic processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Describes the ordered increase from structural to phonemic to semantic processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
States that the semantic or habitat-meaning group has the highest mean recognition.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Limits the conclusion to the sample, labels or study conditions rather than universalising it.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Identifies orienting or encoding decisions of different processing depth as the shared method feature.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Identifies later recognition or retention as the relevant outcome.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
States the study's contribution as evidence for stronger memory after deep semantic processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains that random allocation reduces systematic participant differences or supports group equivalence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains that standardisation reduces procedural differences or strengthens internal validity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Identifies a remaining sample, task or generalisability limitation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part e (1 mark)
Identifies disclosure of the expected result.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Links participant expectations to altered effort or responding.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Removes the unequal expectation cue from the briefing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Specifies allocation-blind scoring to reduce experimenter influence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Links the omitted eight false selections to inflated apparent recognition.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Calculates approximately 66.7% incorrect selections of unstudied labels.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Explains how matched alternatives prevent rejection using superficial differences.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Reports both selection counts separately with their respective denominators.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Explains how the null result could challenge the predicted levels-of-processing effect.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Explains how an insensitive recognition measure could produce the same null pattern.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Specifies an added observation that can discriminate between the two interpretations.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section One Question 3
(a) The air burst automatically evokes startle, making it the UCS and that reflex the UCR. The initially neutral alarm becomes the CS through pairing and then elicits the learned startle CR.
The response must preserve the before-learning and after-learning roles.
(b) The trainee learns a relaxation response and encounters a graded alarm hierarchy while relaxed. Repeated safe exposure can weaken the conditioned startle and establish a response incompatible with high arousal.
The program needs relaxation, gradual exposure and a learning mechanism.
(c) Presenting the alarm without the air burst can produce extinction, but the startle may briefly return after time as spontaneous recovery. Participation must be voluntary with withdrawal and protection from excessive distress.
Learning principles and participant welfare must both be addressed.
(d) Consent after the burst cannot retrospectively authorise exposure already experienced. Unexpected stimulation may cause psychological distress even if the air is physically harmless. Explain the nature of the simulator exposure beforehand and provide a genuine opportunity to decline. An ethics committee must assess the justification, risks and safeguards before recruitment, not merely endorse results afterwards.
Consent after the burst cannot retrospectively authorise exposure already experienced. Unexpected stimulation may cause psychological distress even if the air is physically harmless. Explain the nature of the simulator exposure beforehand and provide a genuine opportunity to decline. An ethics committee must assess the justification, risks and safeguards before recruitment, not merely endorse results afterwards.
(e) Responding to the similar doorbell is stimulus generalisation. The lack of response to the different musical sound shows that responding is not indiscriminate across all sounds. Use voluntary, tolerable presentations of the doorbell in a calm setting without the air burst. Reduced response to the doorbell while the alarm remains distinguishable would indicate more selective responding.
Responding to the similar doorbell is stimulus generalisation. The lack of response to the different musical sound shows that responding is not indiscriminate across all sounds. Use voluntary, tolerable presentations of the doorbell in a calm setting without the air burst. Reduced response to the doorbell while the alarm remains distinguishable would indicate more selective responding.
(f) Both illustrate acquisition of a response to a previously neutral cue through pairing with an eliciting stimulus. The historical participant was an infant, unlike the adult trainees who can give their own informed consent. The infant could not understand or freely consent to deliberately induced fear and required particular protection from psychological harm.
Both illustrate acquisition of a response to a previously neutral cue through pairing with an eliciting stimulus. The historical participant was an infant, unlike the adult trainees who can give their own informed consent. The infant could not understand or freely consent to deliberately induced fear and required particular protection from psychological harm.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies the alarm tone before pairing as the neutral stimulus.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies the compressed-air burst as the unconditioned stimulus.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies startle to the air burst as the unconditioned response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies the alarm tone after pairing as the conditioned stimulus.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Identifies startle to the alarm tone as the conditioned response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Identifies relaxation training as the competing response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains gradual exposure through a hierarchy from low to normal alarm volume.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains weakening of the conditioned response or learning a response incompatible with high arousal.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Explains extinction as decline of the conditioned startle when the alarm occurs without the air burst.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Explains spontaneous recovery as reappearance of the extinguished response after a delay.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Applies voluntary participation, withdrawal or protection from psychological harm to the program.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains why later withdrawal does not replace prior informed consent.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part d (1 mark)
Distinguishes physical harmlessness from possible psychological harm.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part d (1 mark)
Proposes meaningful advance information and voluntary choice.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part d (1 mark)
Applies prospective ethics approval to the proposed deception and risk.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Applies generalisation to the similar untrained sound.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Uses the musical-sound observation to delimit generalisation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Proposes non-aversive, consent-based exposure to the harmless doorbell.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Specifies differential responding as evidence of discrimination; does not require further aversive pairing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Identifies classical conditioning as the shared principle.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Contrasts the infant with consenting adult trainees.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Connects the participant difference to consent or vulnerability to induced distress.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section One Question 4
(a) Meaningful role choice supports autonomy, mastery feedback supports competence, and stable teams support relatedness.
Each need must be applied to a different program feature.
(b) Service-hour credit is an externally controlled reason for volunteering. When a volunteer personally values the environmental purpose, participation can reflect identified regulation even if gardening is not inherently enjoyable.
The two regulatory styles differ in where the reason for action is located.
(c) Life satisfaction and the balance of positive and negative affect measure Diener's subjective wellbeing. Interview evidence about purpose and positive relations maps to Ryff's psychological wellbeing factors.
The response must distinguish subjective wellbeing components from psychological wellbeing factors.
(d) Volunteers self-select and may differ at baseline, and concurrent life events or expectations can affect reported wellbeing without being caused by the garden.
Two distinct alternative explanations are required.
(e) Identified regulation fits valuing the environmental purpose. Disliking the weeding gives no evidence of doing that activity for inherent enjoyment. 'What else, if anything, influences your decision to attend?' allows another motive without suggesting one. Several motives may coexist and change across tasks or time; a code describes the stated reason, not an unchanging person.
Identified regulation fits valuing the environmental purpose. Disliking the weeding gives no evidence of doing that activity for inherent enjoyment. 'What else, if anything, influences your decision to attend?' allows another motive without suggesting one. Several motives may coexist and change across tasks or time; a code describes the stated reason, not an unchanging person.
(f) Understanding ecology expresses cognitive needs. Creating beauty expresses aesthetic needs. Realising personal potential expresses self-actualisation. Serving beyond oneself expresses transcendence.
Understanding ecology expresses cognitive needs. Creating beauty expresses aesthetic needs. Realising personal potential expresses self-actualisation. Serving beyond oneself expresses transcendence.
(g) Life satisfaction increases by two scale points. Positive affect is unchanged and negative affect has increased, so the emotional pattern is not an improvement across components. Higher negative affect has the opposite evaluative direction to higher positive affect or satisfaction; an unqualified sum obscures this.
Life satisfaction increases by two scale points. Positive affect is unchanged and negative affect has increased, so the emotional pattern is not an improvement across components. Higher negative affect has the opposite evaluative direction to higher positive affect or satisfaction; an unqualified sum obscures this.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Links meaningful role choice to autonomy.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Links mastery feedback to competence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Links stable small teams to relatedness.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Classifies action for service-hour credit as external regulation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains identified regulation as personally valuing the purpose of the activity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Distinguishes identified regulation from intrinsic enjoyment.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Maps life satisfaction to the cognitive component of Diener's subjective wellbeing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Maps positive and negative affect to Diener's affective balance.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Maps purpose or positive relations interview evidence to a relevant Ryff factor.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains a self-selection or baseline-difference limitation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains a history, expectancy, measurement or other alternative explanation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part e (1 mark)
Classifies the personally valued purpose as identified regulation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Uses dislike of weeding to challenge intrinsic motivation for that activity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Supplies a non-leading question about an additional attendance motive.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Explains why regulation codes attach to reasons and need not define the person permanently.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Maps seeking knowledge to cognitive needs.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Maps beauty and order to aesthetic needs.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Maps fulfilment of potential to self-actualisation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Maps a beyond-self goal to transcendence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Identifies the increase in life satisfaction as favourable.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Uses both affect results to reject uniform improvement.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part g (1 mark)
Explains the opposite direction of negative affect when considering a total score.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section One Question 5
(a) The immediate post-simulation heart-rate rise is consistent with alarm and counter-shock mobilisation. Because the next measure was taken after the simulation ended, it shows recovery rather than continued exposure to the stressor and therefore does not establish resistance. The brief station also cannot demonstrate exhaustion because it provides no evidence of prolonged stress or depleted coping resources.
The measurement timing supports alarm but not the later GAS stages.
(b) Primary appraisal judges whether the simulation is threatening. The briefing may alter secondary appraisal by adding available personnel, support and decision-planning resources; using those resources to change the demand is problem-focused coping.
Both appraisals and a coping pathway are required.
(c) Both groups rise immediately, but the resource group has a smaller peak and returns closer to baseline after 20 minutes. Under these conditions, the briefing reduced the measured cardiovascular response on average.
The conclusion should address both time and condition without claiming all stress was removed.
(d) Heart rate is objective and sensitive to arousal, but it is not specific to psychological stress and can vary with fitness, caffeine or movement. A validated stress rating or semi-structured interview would add subjective appraisal evidence.
Evaluation requires a strength, a construct limitation and a distinct source of evidence.
(e) The scale sums prescribed life-change weights for reported events over the specified period. Equal totals indicate equal aggregate weighted readjustment scores, not identical experiences. Desirable events can still require substantial adjustment. Appraisal, coping resources and circumstances differ between people with the same total. A group-level association with illness risk is not a certain individual diagnosis or prediction.
The scale sums prescribed life-change weights for reported events over the specified period. Equal totals indicate equal aggregate weighted readjustment scores, not identical experiences. Desirable events can still require substantial adjustment. Appraisal, coping resources and circumstances differ between people with the same total. A group-level association with illness risk is not a certain individual diagnosis or prediction.
(f) The initial loss of normal resistance is the shock phase. The brief blood-pressure drop is consistent with that initial disruption. Countershock involves mobilisation of the body's defensive response. The increased heart rate and available energy support action against the stressor. No: exhaustion concerns prolonged demand and depleted resources; a short alarm response alone does not establish it.
The initial loss of normal resistance is the shock phase. The brief blood-pressure drop is consistent with that initial disruption. Countershock involves mobilisation of the body's defensive response. The increased heart rate and available energy support action against the stressor. No: exhaustion concerns prolonged demand and depleted resources; a short alarm response alone does not establish it.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Applies alarm or counter-shock mobilisation to the immediate heart-rate rise.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Explains that a recovery measure taken after the simulation does not establish resistance during continued stress.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Explains that the brief station does not establish exhaustion through prolonged stress or depleted resources.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains primary appraisal as evaluating significance, challenge or threat.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains secondary appraisal as evaluating available coping resources.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Links the resource briefing to increased perceived resources or problem-focused coping.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
States that both conditions show an immediate heart-rate increase.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
States that the resource group has a smaller peak or greater recovery by 20 minutes.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
States a condition-limited conclusion about the measured cardiovascular response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Identifies objectivity or direct physiological recording as a strength.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains non-specificity or a plausible influence unrelated to psychological stress.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Proposes a valid subjective or qualitative measure and explains its complementary value.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part e (1 mark)
Explains weighted accumulation of reported life events.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Interprets equal totals without equating event histories.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Explains inclusion of positive life changes.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Explains why the total does not determine equal distress.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Limits illness inference from the score.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Identifies shock as the initial reduction in resistance.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Connects the supplied initial physiological change to shock.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Explains countershock as mobilisation rather than collapse.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Applies mobilisation to the supplied later changes.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Rejects exhaustion from a brief rise and explains the missing prolonged demand.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section One Question 6
(a) REM has rapid eye movements, very low skeletal muscle tension and faster mixed-frequency EEG activity; deep NREM has no rapid eye movements, greater muscle tone and high-amplitude slow-wave EEG activity.
Three accurate contrasts are required.
(b) Acute sleep loss can reduce attention and slow reflex speed or worsen mood. Persistent sleep deprivation is associated with longer-term risks such as anxiety, obesity, insomnia or heart disease, without permitting diagnosis from this study.
The response must distinguish short-term function from longer-term association.
(c) Both examine restricting bedtime mobile-phone use and outcomes involving sleep and daytime functioning. Differences in population, duration, compliance evidence or measures mean this is not automatically a direct replication.
The designated-study connection must remain at syllabus depth.
(d) Unverified usual-routine phone use can weaken internal validity. Standardised attention-task instructions and test-retest checks can support reliability. Informed consent, privacy of phone data and withdrawal without housing consequences protect participants.
The response must separate evidence quality from participant protection.
(e) A phone can be correctly stored while another screen remains in use. It records the phone's location rather than exposure to other devices. Collect consensual, brief device-use timing logs without capturing private messages or browsing content. Post-allocation removal could select a different kind of student and compromise the original random comparison. It evaluates offering the specified phone-placement routine under the observed adherence, not complete screen abstinence.
A phone can be correctly stored while another screen remains in use. It records the phone's location rather than exposure to other devices. Collect consensual, brief device-use timing logs without capturing private messages or browsing content. Post-allocation removal could select a different kind of student and compromise the original random comparison. It evaluates offering the specified phone-placement routine under the observed adherence, not complete screen abstinence.
(f) Evolutionary theory proposes that sleep patterns have adaptive survival value. Reduced activity at an unsafe or unproductive time can conserve energy or reduce exposure to hazards. Restorative theory emphasises sleep's role in recovery and repair after waking activity. Evolutionary inactivity alone does not fully explain the serious impairments that follow sleep deprivation. Restoration alone does not fully explain differences in timing and duration across species or environments.
Evolutionary theory proposes that sleep patterns have adaptive survival value. Reduced activity at an unsafe or unproductive time can conserve energy or reduce exposure to hazards. Restorative theory emphasises sleep's role in recovery and repair after waking activity. Evolutionary inactivity alone does not fully explain the serious impairments that follow sleep deprivation. Restoration alone does not fully explain differences in timing and duration across species or environments.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
Detailed marking criteria
Part a (1 mark)
Accurately contrasts eye movement in REM and deep NREM sleep.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Accurately contrasts skeletal muscle tension in REM and deep NREM sleep.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part a (1 mark)
Accurately contrasts characteristic EEG brainwave patterns in REM and deep NREM sleep.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains one prescribed acute effect such as reduced attention, mood change, slower reflexes or impaired vision.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Explains a second distinct prescribed acute effect.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part b (1 mark)
Identifies a prescribed chronic consequence and avoids diagnosing an individual.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Identifies bedtime mobile-phone restriction as the shared study focus.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Identifies sleep, arousal, mood or working memory as a relevant designated-study outcome.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part c (1 mark)
Explains a sample, duration, compliance or measurement limit on direct comparison.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Explains how unverified usual-routine use creates uncertainty about the comparison or internal validity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Identifies a standardisation or test-retest procedure relevant to reliability.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part d (1 mark)
Applies informed consent, privacy, withdrawal or protection from harm to the boarding-house context.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award a response that only repeats the stimulus or contradicts the required psychological decision.
Part e (1 mark)
Distinguishes verified phone storage from total screen avoidance.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Limits the log to the device behaviour it actually records.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Measures other-device exposure while excluding unnecessary private content.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Identifies selection introduced by deleting assigned tablet users.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part e (1 mark)
Limits the effect being evaluated to the assigned phone routine as implemented.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Explains the adaptive-survival account.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Applies an adaptive benefit to overnight inactivity.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Explains recovery and repair during sleep.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Gives a defensible limitation of the adaptive-inactivity explanation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Part f (1 mark)
Gives a defensible limitation of restoration as a complete account.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent psychological terminology and evidence-based reasoning that makes the same decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported restatement, a generic research term without application, or a conclusion that exceeds the supplied evidence.
Section Two Question 7
Indicative answer: A strong response explains that semantic or deep processing attends to meaning, that elaborative rehearsal links new material with existing knowledge, and that the worksheet could prompt both processes. Craik and Tulving (1975) supports better retention following semantic rather than structural or phonemic processing, but its evidence does not prove this classroom worksheet caused the class difference. The response identifies class-selection and teacher alternatives, proposes comparable conditions with delayed recognition, suitable allocation and standardisation, and applies voluntary consent, withdrawal, confidentiality, protection and debriefing. The complete response uses accurate psychological terminology throughout and acknowledges relevant theories, models or studies by researcher or author and date.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
- The criterion tally determines the final mark. Holistic bands are descriptive guidance only and do not override the criterion total.
Detailed marking criteria
Explain and apply levels of processing, elaborative rehearsal and Craik and Tulving (1975) (7 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains semantic or deep processing as attention to meaning rather than structural or phonemic features.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains elaborative rehearsal as linking new information with existing knowledge or meaningful associations.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies semantic processing and elaborative rehearsal to a specific feature of the meaning-link worksheet.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses Craik and Tulving (1975) accurately as evidence that semantic processing can improve later retention while respecting its evidential limits.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to explain and apply levels of processing, elaborative rehearsal and Craik and Tulving (1975) with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will explain and apply levels of processing, elaborative rehearsal and Craik and Tulving (1975).
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Integrates the reasoning used to explain and apply levels of processing, elaborative rehearsal and Craik and Tulving (1975) with a different required component of the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Evaluate the original causal claim and its alternative explanations (5 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
States an evidence-limited conclusion rather than accepting that the worksheet caused the difference.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains the different teachers, class selection or baseline memory as an alternative explanation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to evaluate the original causal claim and its alternative explanations with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will evaluate the original causal claim and its alternative explanations.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Integrates the reasoning used to evaluate the original causal claim and its alternative explanations with a different required component of the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Design and operationalise a stronger delayed-recognition comparison (5 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Operationalises the meaning-link worksheet and comparison conditions plus a delayed-recognition outcome.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses suitable allocation and standardised words, timing, instructions and scoring to strengthen the comparison.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to design and operationalise a stronger delayed-recognition comparison with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will design and operationalise a stronger delayed-recognition comparison.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Integrates the reasoning used to design and operationalise a stronger delayed-recognition comparison with a different required component of the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Apply ethical safeguards and reach a qualified judgement (4 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies voluntary informed consent, withdrawal and confidentiality in the school context.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Reaches a coherent conclusion whose certainty is proportionate to the proposed design.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Do not credit by itself: Do not award unsupported causal or population-wide claims that exceed the proposed evidence.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to apply ethical safeguards and reach a qualified judgement with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will apply ethical safeguards and reach a qualified judgement.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Appropriate psychological terminology (3 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses some appropriate psychological terminology relevant to the theories, studies, models and concepts in the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses a variety of appropriate psychological terminology accurately and in a clear, logical way.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses appropriate psychological terminology fluently to sustain a precise and coherent response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Source acknowledgement and referencing (2 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the researcher or author name.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the associated date accurately and consistently.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Holistic marking bands
| Marks | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 21-26 | Constructs a precise, critical and evidence-bounded evaluation in which theory, design, measurement, ethics, terminology and referencing reinforce one another. |
| 16-20 | Integrates relevant psychology, evidence evaluation, research design and ethics into a supported judgement using clear terminology and source acknowledgement. |
| 11-15 | Applies generally sound psychology and inquiry decisions, but important evidence boundaries, controls or communication requirements remain incomplete. |
| 6-10 | Shows partial knowledge and a limited design or evaluation, with weak integration and inconsistent communication. |
| 0-5 | Provides isolated terms or untested claims with little valid application, inquiry reasoning or source acknowledgement. |
Section Two Question 8
Indicative answer: A strong response links shorter spoken chunks to reduced phonological and central-executive load during training but recognises that the equal four-week result does not establish durable improvement. It explains the meaning-link result through semantic processing and elaborative rehearsal, using Craik and Tulving (1975) as relevant but not identical evidence. It applies attention, retention, reproduction and motivation to the expert model while treating the familiar-checklist advantage and absent unfamiliar-scenario advantage as different outcomes. The response evaluates comparability, scoring reliability, safety and consent, then recommends only the components supported by each result and identifies one targeted follow-up result that addresses the most important remaining uncertainty. The complete response uses accurate psychological terminology throughout and acknowledges relevant theories, models and studies by researcher or author and date.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
- The criterion tally determines the final mark. Holistic bands are descriptive guidance only and do not override the criterion total.
- Mark Question 8 or Question 9 as one independent 31-mark response. Do not combine evidence across the two alternatives.
Detailed marking criteria
Interpret and apply the psychological mechanisms to the supplied results (8 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies the phonological loop or central executive to the reduction in radio errors during chunked training.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why equal performance four weeks later limits a durable working-memory training claim.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies semantic or deep processing to the higher four-week route-rule recognition after meaning-link mapping.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains how elaborative rehearsal links route rules with meaningful prior knowledge or associations.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies attention, retention, reproduction and motivation to the expert-model checklist result.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why the absent unfamiliar-scenario advantage limits a transfer claim about expert modelling.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to interpret and apply the psychological mechanisms to the supplied results with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will interpret and apply the psychological mechanisms to the supplied results.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Use and evaluate Craik and Tulving (1975) (5 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Accurately describes the semantic-processing comparison or retention finding from Craik and Tulving (1975).
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses Craik and Tulving (1975) to support the predicted value of meaning-based processing.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one methodological or contextual limit on transferring Craik and Tulving's word-task evidence to ranger induction.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Distinguishes the designated study's contribution from the findings supplied in the ranger trial.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to use and evaluate Craik and Tulving (1975) with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Reconcile the conflicting findings and rival explanations (6 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Separates immediate training performance from delayed retention rather than treating them as one outcome.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Interprets route recognition, familiar-checklist performance and unfamiliar-scenario performance as distinct evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Identifies a plausible rival explanation such as baseline experience, unequal practice or assessor expectations.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why one supported component does not establish that the complete induction package is effective.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Reconciles the conflicting findings without averaging them into a single success or failure claim.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to reconcile the conflicting findings and rival explanations with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Evaluate evidence quality and ethical safeguards (4 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Identifies a standardisation, group-comparability or internal-validity issue relevant to the supplied trial.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains how blind checklist scoring, a pre-specified rubric or agreement checking would support reliable interpretation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies informed consent, withdrawal, privacy, protection from harm and physical safety to the field-simulation evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to evaluate evidence quality and ethical safeguards with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Make a bounded component-by-component recommendation and specify one targeted follow-up result (3 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Makes a component-by-component recommendation whose certainty matches the supplied results.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Specifies one targeted additional result that directly addresses the most consequential remaining uncertainty.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to make a bounded component-by-component recommendation and specify one targeted follow-up result with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Appropriate psychological terminology (3 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses some appropriate psychological terminology relevant to the theories, studies, models and concepts in the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses a variety of appropriate psychological terminology accurately and in a clear, logical way.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses appropriate psychological terminology fluently to sustain a precise and coherent response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Source acknowledgement and referencing (2 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the researcher or author name.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the associated date accurately and consistently.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Holistic marking bands
| Marks | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 25-31 | Constructs a comprehensive critical evaluation in which theory, evidence, alternatives, design, ethics, terminology, source acknowledgement and the final decision are mutually consistent. |
| 19-24 | Integrates mechanisms, evidence, design, measurement and ethics into a coherent conditional recommendation using clear terminology and referencing. |
| 13-18 | Explains and applies the required constructs with a workable evaluation and some justified limits on interpretation. |
| 7-12 | Applies some relevant concepts and suggests evidence, but mechanisms, comparison logic and communication remain weakly connected. |
| 0-6 | Provides disconnected concepts or proposal description with little valid application, evidence planning or source acknowledgement. |
Section Two Question 9
Indicative answer: A strong response interprets the sequence rather than collapsing it into a before-and-after difference. The roster change may increase primary appraisal of demand and initially reduce perceived coping resources, with emotion-focused coping and sleep complaints preceding the temporary absence rise. Recovery in problem-focused coping and the earlier recovery among staff with shift-swap control are relevant to secondary appraisal and individual resources. The General Adaptation Syndrome can organise the changing stress response, but it does not make the stages inevitable or prove causation. The unchanged comparison site strengthens temporal interpretation, while a site-level non-randomised change, concurrent workload differences and individual trajectories limit the causal claim. The response evaluates measurement, attrition, privacy and harm, recommends a bounded roster review rather than universal rejection or adoption, and identifies the next result needed. The complete response uses accurate psychological terminology throughout and acknowledges relevant theories, models and studies by researcher or author and date.
Mark allocation
- Award each criterion independently when its evidence is present; do not require the model-answer wording or sequence.
- Accept accurate equivalent psychological terminology and logically equivalent use of supplied evidence.
- Do not double-penalise a consequential error when later reasoning is internally consistent, unless a later criterion independently tests the same fact.
- Escalate ambiguous, contradictory, culturally sensitive, novel or low-confidence responses to the senior human marker rather than inferring unsupported meaning.
- The criterion tally determines the final mark. Holistic bands are descriptive guidance only and do not override the criterion total.
- Mark Question 8 or Question 9 as one independent 31-mark response. Do not combine evidence across the two alternatives.
Detailed marking criteria
Interpret the longitudinal stress, coping, sleep and wellbeing pattern (7 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies primary appraisal to the perceived demands associated with the roster change.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies secondary appraisal to perceived control, resources and shift-swap access.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Distinguishes problem-focused coping from emotion-focused coping in the supplied pattern.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses the General Adaptation Syndrome to interpret change over time without treating its stages as inevitable.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Connects sleep complaints and temporary absence to the time-ordered stress pattern.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses Site B as a comparison rather than treating Site A's change in isolation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to interpret the longitudinal stress, coping, sleep and wellbeing pattern with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Analyse the comparison site, temporal order and individual trajectories (6 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Interprets the month-by-month ordering of workload, coping, sleep and absence evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why recovery by month six is inconsistent with a simple continuously worsening account.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses the shift-swap subgroup result to identify perceived control as a plausible moderator.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why group means do not replace interpretation of individual trajectories.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to analyse the comparison site, temporal order and individual trajectories with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains one consequential boundary, alternative or result that qualifies how the response will analyse the comparison site, temporal order and individual trajectories.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Evaluate the causal claim and specify stronger evidence (6 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Identifies the non-randomised site-level roster change as a limit on causal inference.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Identifies a credible concurrent workload, staffing or seasonal rival explanation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains why temporal order supports but does not prove the roster claim.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Specifies a comparison, staggered introduction or within-person result that would strengthen causal interpretation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Distinguishes a roster effect on stress appraisal from a claim that the roster caused every measured change.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to evaluate the causal claim and specify stronger evidence with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Evaluate measurement quality and ethical safeguards (4 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Evaluates the validity of the workload, coping, sleep and absence measures for their distinct constructs.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Explains how repeated administration and consistent absence recording support reliable longitudinal comparison.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Applies informed consent, withdrawal, privacy, protection from harm and safeguards against employment consequences.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to evaluate measurement quality and ethical safeguards with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Make a bounded service recommendation and next evidence check (3 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Makes a bounded service recommendation linked to the supplied time pattern and staff-control result.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Specifies the next evidence check and the result that would trigger review of that recommendation.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Supports the requirement to make a bounded service recommendation and next evidence check with a specific detail from the supplied scenario, result or named evidence.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Appropriate psychological terminology (3 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses some appropriate psychological terminology relevant to the theories, studies, models and concepts in the response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses a variety of appropriate psychological terminology accurately and in a clear, logical way.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Uses appropriate psychological terminology fluently to sustain a precise and coherent response.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Source acknowledgement and referencing (2 marks)
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the researcher or author name.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Integrated response (1 mark)
Acknowledges relevant sources using the associated date accurately and consistently.
Acceptable alternatives: Credit accurate equivalent terminology, evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the same psychological decision.
Holistic marking bands
| Marks | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 25-31 | Constructs a comprehensive critical evaluation in which theory, evidence, alternatives, design, ethics, terminology, source acknowledgement and the final decision are mutually consistent. |
| 19-24 | Integrates mechanisms, evidence, design, measurement and ethics into a coherent conditional recommendation using clear terminology and referencing. |
| 13-18 | Explains and applies the required constructs with a workable evaluation and some justified limits on interpretation. |
| 7-12 | Applies some relevant concepts and suggests evidence, but mechanisms, comparison logic and communication remain weakly connected. |
| 0-6 | Provides disconnected concepts or proposal description with little valid application, evidence planning or source acknowledgement. |
Diagnostic Checklist
| Topic | Questions | Marks | Marks Lost | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit 3 - Memory and learning | Q1, Q2, Q3 | 68 | ___ | Review the prescribed memory and learning concepts, designated evidence and integrated Science inquiry decisions assessed in these questions. |
| Unit 4 - Psychology of motivation, wellbeing and health | Q4, Q5, Q6 | 66 | ___ | Review the prescribed motivation, wellbeing, stress and sleep concepts, evidence and integrated Science inquiry decisions assessed in these questions. |
| Extended response and integrated Science inquiry | Q7 and Q8 or Q9 | 57 | ___ | Practise the compulsory 26-mark Part A response and one 31-mark Part B response, including the scored terminology and source-acknowledgement criteria. |