Psychology 9218 | Paper 2 Mock 01 | Social context and behaviour

(a) Exposure and response prevention / ERP. [1]
(b) The client is prevented from returning to check the cupboard. [1]
(c) Anxiety can reduce without checking, so checking is no longer reinforced / the client learns the feared outcome does not occur. [1]

(a) Any three from: display posters in comparable locations [1]; run both conditions for the same length of time [1]; provide the same clinic dates and appointment availability [1]; keep poster size and colour similar [1]; avoid different local publicity during one condition [1]. (b) Strengths, any two from: attendance is objective [1]; it measures actual health behaviour rather than stated intention [1]; totals are easy to compare across conditions [1]. Limitations, any two from: people may attend because of a doctor's reminder rather than the poster [1]; attendance does not show whether people read or understood the communication [1]; weather, illness outbreaks or transport may affect numbers [1].

(a) Obsessive compulsive disorder / OCD [1] (b) Whether the participant chooses to send a supportive message [1] (c) A stereotype may lead people to view someone with OCD as difficult, dangerous or responsible for their symptoms [1], reducing empathy and willingness to offer support [1]. (d) Any one safeguard evaluated: give a warning about sensitive mental-health content [1] so participants can make an informed choice or withdraw without distress [1]; or debrief and provide support-service details [1] to reduce possible distress [1].

(a) Visible uniform/lanyard / hospital setting / recognised professional role [1] (b) Lanyards make legitimate authority clear [1], so visitors may believe staff have the right and expertise to give health-related instructions [1]. (c) Code responses into categories, such as complied/did not comply, and count frequencies / identify themes [1]. (d) Visitors may give socially desirable answers [1], so reported obedience may be higher than their actual behaviour [1].

(a) Any one: what they will do / what data will be collected / possible risks / that participation is voluntary / how results will be used [1] (b) State clearly that they can stop without giving a reason, or provide a withdrawal procedure/contact [1] (c) The sample is self-selected and may already be interested in health, so it may not represent other people [1]

(a) 20 - 14 = 6 [1]. Mean increase = 6 points [1].
(b) Encouraging people to plan/complete activities [1] that are enjoyable, meaningful or previously rewarding [1].
(c) Attendance varied, so some people received much less of the programme [1], making it difficult to attribute the mean change solely to behavioural activation / limiting conclusions about effectiveness [1].

(a) Strength: influence is greater when the source has status, power, or importance [1]. Immediacy: influence is greater when the source is physically, socially, or psychologically close [1]. Number: influence generally increases as the number of influencing people rises [1]. These factors combine to affect the social impact on a target person or group [1]. (b) A message from the trusted emergency service may produce more evacuation than one neighbour because it has greater strength [1]. Several neighbours may have more influence than one because number is higher [1]. Residents close to the flood zone may respond more because the threat is more immediate [1]. Residents 12 km away may perceive less immediacy and be less likely to leave quickly [1]. (c) Any seventeen from: the theory gives clear, testable factors, such as source number and distance [1]; councils can manipulate these factors in field studies [1]; this gives practical value for designing warning systems [1]; it predicts that trusted official sources should be influential [1]; it can explain why local neighbours may also matter when they are socially close [1]; it considers group influence rather than only individual personality [1]; it can be applied to health campaigns, workplace rules, and emergency behaviour [1]; numerical predictions may be difficult because strength and immediacy are not measured in one standard way [1]; for example, trust in an emergency service varies between people [1]; counting sources ignores the quality of their message [1]; ten uninformed neighbours may not be more persuasive than one expert [1]; the theory may oversimplify complex decisions to leave home [1]; evacuation can depend on transport, pets, disability, income, or previous storm experience [1]; these situational factors can affect behaviour independently of social impact [1]; people may resist a powerful source if they distrust its motives [1]; this shows that influence is not always proportional to status [1]; cultural differences may affect whether people value official authority or family opinion [1]; therefore findings from one town may not generalise internationally [1]; some evidence uses artificial judgement tasks [1]; such tasks may lack the fear and real consequences of a storm [1]; field studies have greater realism but less control of weather, media coverage, and road conditions [1]; ethical concerns arise if researchers delay or vary genuine safety warnings [1]; the theory does not fully explain private attitude change after the immediate social pressure is removed [1]; minority influence can sometimes change majority views despite low initial number [1]; this challenges a simple assumption that larger groups are always more influential [1]; individual knowledge can lead a person to ignore a majority [1]; despite these limits, the theory is useful when combined with explanations of trust, risk, and practical barriers [1].

(a) Non-participant observation [1] (b) A shared operational definition means both observers are more likely to count the same behaviour consistently [1] (c) Their two sets of observation totals / the level of agreement between their counts [1]

(a) Post-traumatic stress disorder / PTSD. [1]
(b) Refusing to watch flood reports / avoiding flood-related calls, places or conversations. [1]
(c) Confidentiality reduces fear that private information will be shared with colleagues or managers [1], which may reduce stigma and make disclosure/help-seeking more likely [1].

(a) Physical proximity / leaning towards the other person / body orientation [1] (b) Any two from: sitting close or leaning in can suggest interest or involvement [1]; it can make speaking and listening easier [1]; this may encourage the conversation to continue [1].

(a) The group saying each word aloud ten times [1] (b) Answering meaning questions involves elaborative / semantic rehearsal [1]. This creates meaningful links and deeper processing, making long-term retrieval more likely [1]. (c) The app may test only simple word-translation recall rather than all types of learning [1]. Participants' previous Italian knowledge, motivation, or device use could affect results, so semantic learning may not always be the cause [1].

(a) Three apparent donors nearby [1] (b) Donation rate rises as the number of apparent donors increases, from 15% to 26% to 39% [1]. (c) It does not prove causation because other factors may differ between conditions, such as time of day or which shoppers passed by [1]; these uncontrolled variables could affect donations [1].

(a) Retroactive interference [1] (b) The newer tree list is learned after the bird list [1]. The newer learning disrupts recall of the earlier bird information [1].

(a) Forgetting from short-term memory / STM forgetting [1] (b) The arithmetic task prevents rehearsal of the animal names [1]. Without rehearsal, the names may decay from STM / be displaced by arithmetic information [1]. (c) Keep the same delay period [1]; replace arithmetic with a quiet, non-verbal task or no additional task [1]; compare recall with the arithmetic condition, where lower recall specifically after distraction would suggest interference rather than decay [1].

(a) Any one: differences in class culture / teacher presence / number of break-time incidents / prior friendship groups [1] (b) Create a behavioural checklist with observable actions, such as telling an adult or supporting a victim [1], and train teachers to apply the same definitions [1] (c) Two classes may not represent students in other schools, ages or locations [1] (d) A directional hypothesis is suitable if prior research or theory predicts that the workshop will increase helpful interventions [1]; without a justified predicted direction, a non-directional hypothesis is safer [1].

(a) Any clear measurable definition, for example: count occasions when a student tells a member of staff about hostile comments [1] or asks the speaker to stop within two minutes of observing the comment [1]. (b) Ambassadors act as observable models [1]; students may attend to and remember their inclusive responses [1]; if ambassadors receive praise or social approval, vicarious reinforcement may encourage imitation [1]. (c) The college may have an unusual age range, existing culture or selected volunteers [1], so findings may not generalise to younger pupils or schools with different social norms [1].