Higher Psychology
Question Paper 2016
Commentary
Commentary on candidate
evidence
The evidence for these candidates has achieved the following marks for each
question of this course assessment component.
Question 1(a) (2 marks) asks candidates to suggest a suitable hypothesis for the
given study. The expected response is for a predictive statement agreed by the
researchers prior to the study taking place.
.
 Candidate 1 was awarded 1 mark as this candidate presents a
conclusion to the research.
 Candidate 2 was awarded 2 marks for a clear predictive statement of
intent
Question 1(b) (2 marks) asks candidates to describe a sampling method.
Candidates are expected to provide a statement or structure and/or features.
This will be more than an outline or a list. It may refer to, for instance, a concept,
process, experiment, situation or fact.
 Candidate 3 was awarded 2 marks for providing a developed response
with the inclusion of the main features of their chosen sampling method.
 Candidate 4 was awarded 0 marks as the candidate does not provide
any key feature(s) of their chosen sampling method.
Question 1(c) (6 marks) asks candidates to evaluate the research method used
within the given study. Expected response is either natural or field experiment.
For evaluation candidates are required to make points that make a judgement
based on criteria; determining the value of something.
 Candidate 5 was awarded 6 marks, here we see a well-developed
response where the candidate states a strength or weakness (makes a
point) and then tells us why it is a strength or weakness (makes a
judgement) and goes onto tells us the impact of this (determining the
value).
 Candidate 6 was awarded 4 marks, while evaluation takes place the
response is not fully developed, valid points and judgement is present
within this response, although the candidate does not always follow this
through with determining the value.
1 of 5
Higher Psychology
Question Paper 2016
Commentary
Question 1(d) (4 marks) asks candidates to analyse the results of the given
study. Candidates are required to make points that identify parts, the relationship
between them, and their relationship to the whole; draw out and relate
implications; analyse data (possibly including calculations and/or a conclusion)
 Candidate 7 was awarded 3 marks, here we see the candidate
identifying parts (results for each group) the relationship between them
(comparing the groups data) and makes the relationship with the whole
(the health and wellbeing programme) although does not develop this to
draw out and relate implications or draw a clear conclusion.
 Candidate 8 was awarded 1 mark for this question for their presentation
of the data and for their conclusion (no negative marking for mention of
correlation here) the candidate recognises from the results that the health
and wellbeing programme had an effect on a person’s likelihood of
experiencing a second stroke.
Question 1(e) (6 marks) asks candidate to explain ways in which the study could
be improved, here candidates are required to make points that relate cause and
effect and/or make relationships between things clear. This explanation may be
the product of a process that includes evaluation and/or analysis.
 Candidate 9 was awarded 6 marks, here we see the candidate provides
explanation through, making a point (an improvement) and going onto
relate cause and affect by following through with the impact of the
suggested improvement.
 Candidate 10 was awarded 0 marks. The candidate does not explain
ways in which the study could be improved but lists points of
improvement, the candidate does not relate cause and affect or make the
relationship between things clear. For marks to be awarded the candidate
would need to go onto say why the improvement should be made (making
the relationship between things clear) and/or say what impact the
suggested improvement would have on the research/results (relate cause
and affect).
2 of 5
Higher Psychology
Question Paper 2016
Commentary
Question 2(a) (4 marks) asks candidates to describe a sleep disorder they have
studied. Here candidates are expected to provide a statement or structure and/or
features. This will be more than an outline or a list. It may refer to, for instance, a
concept, process, experiment, situation or fact.
 Candidate 11 was awarded 4 marks as they clearly state relevant features of
their chosen sleep disorder. While the candidate goes on to provide further
description of this and introduces possible cause and treatments this
additional information is not required for a ‘describe’ question.
 Candidate 12 was awarded 1 mark here as there is a contrast with the level
of information presented and only one relevant feature stated.
Question 2(b) (i) (4 marks) asks candidates to describe one study related to the
mandatory topic. As in question 2a, candidates are expected to provide a
statement or structure and/or features. This will be more than an outline or a list.
It may refer to, for instance, a concept, process, experiment, situation or fact.
 Candidate 13 was awarded 4 marks and clearly states 4 key elements to
the study they are describing, providing knowledge of the aim, structure /
procedure and results.
 Candidate 14 was awarded 2 marks as the candidate clearly recollects a
research study although only provides a general outline with minimal
features or structure to their description.
Question 2(b) (ii) (4marks) asks candidates to evaluate the study they described
in the previous question. Candidates are expected to make points that make a
judgement based on criteria; determining the value of something.
 Candidate 15 was awarded 4 marks. The candidate presents two
developed weaknesses, making relevant points based on a criteria and
goes onto determine the value.
 Candidates 16 was awarded 1 mark as the candidate makes a relevant
point although does not base this on a criteria or follow through with
determining the value.
3 of 5
Higher Psychology
Question Paper 2016
Commentary
Question 2(c) (8 marks) asks candidates to use the cognitive approach to
explain sleep and dreams. Here the expectation is for a focus on the topic and
not a general description of the cognitive approach. To ‘explain’ candidates are
required to make points that relate cause and effect and/or make relationships
between things clear. This explanation may be the product of a process that
includes evaluation and/or analysis.
 Candidate 17 was awarded 8 marks, here the candidate clearly identifies
parts of the cognitive approach and sleep and makes the link /
relationship between the two clear, while supporting their explanation with
relevant theory.
 Candidate 18 was awarded 3 marks. Similarly the candidate makes
relevant points about the cognitive approach and topic, although the
candidate does not make the connection / relationship between these
points clear.
Question 3(a) (8 marks) asks candidates to describe strategies for resisting
social pressure/coercion. Candidates should provide a statement or structure
and/or features. This will be more than an outline or a list. It may refer to, for
instance, a concept, process, experiment, situation or fact.
 Candidate 19 was awarded 8 marks because they provided structure and
features within their response, describing the relevant process of the
identified strategies of resisting social pressure.
 Candidate 20 was awarded 3 marks because while the strategies identified
are relevant, only an outline has been provided with a brief reference to
research.
Question 3(b) (4 marks) asks candidates to explain two factors that affect
conformity. To ‘explain’ candidates are required to make points that relate cause
and effect and/or make relationships between things clear. This explanation may
be the product of a process that includes evaluation and/or analysis.
 Candidate 21 was awarded 4 marks making clear points and using relevant
supporting research to demonstrate the relationship between these points.
 Candidate 22 was awarded 2 marks. One clear point of explanation is fully
followed through, where the candidate makes the points (peer pressure and
behaviour) makes the relationship between the two clear with examples
(being left out/bullying).
4 of 5
Higher Psychology
Question Paper 2016
Commentary
Question 3(c) (8 marks) asks candidates to evaluate the mandatory research
study for the topic of conformity and obedience. Candidates are expected to
make points that make a judgement based on criteria; determining the value of
something.
 Candidate 23 was awarded 6 marks because they identified relevant points
making a judgement on these and determining their value. Providing
information on the strength or weakness, why it is a strength or weakness
and demonstrating how this could have impacted on results or contributes to
the understanding of the behaviour being studied.
 Candidate 24 was awarded 2 marks the candidate is making generalisations
and makes one clear disadvantage (use of student participants) and following
this through with evaluation of making a point that makes a judgement and
determines the value.
5 of 5