Each question is worth 1 point. Write your response in the box, then click Show Answer to reveal the key points for full credit. Check each bullet against your response before moving on. Pay close attention to the action word — identify, describe, explain, and propose each require different response types.
✍ FRQ Practice · Research method + operational definition
Researchers wanted to test how using a heuristic affects decision-making speed. They recruited 80 college students and randomly assigned half to a 'shortcut' group, who were trained to use the representativeness heuristic when sorting people into job categories, and half to a 'careful' group, who were instructed to consider all available statistical information before deciding. Each participant then sorted 30 short character profiles into job categories. The shortcut group made decisions in an average of 3.2 seconds per profile; the careful group took 8.7 seconds per profile.
Adapted study, Unit 2: Heuristics
Identify the research method used in this study and state the operational definition of decision-making speed as used by the researchers.
Key Points for Full Credit
Identifies the method as an experiment (random assignment to shortcut vs. careful conditions)
Operational definition of decision-making speed = average number of seconds per profile sorted
Must be specific and measurable
Rubric note: Award the point only if the response (1) identifies the method as an experiment (random assignment to two conditions confirms this), AND (2) gives a measurable definition of decision-making speed referencing the average number of seconds per profile sorted. A vague answer like 'how quickly they decided' does NOT earn the point.
✍ FRQ Practice · Interpret a statistic
Researchers tested how levels of processing affect memory. Participants studied a list of 40 words under one of two conditions: shallow processing (judging whether each word was in capital letters) or deep processing (judging whether each word fit into a sentence). On a later recall test, the deep-processing group remembered an average of 28 words out of 40, while the shallow-processing group remembered an average of 14 words out of 40. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Adapted study, Unit 2: Memory encoding
Describe what the difference in mean recall scores between the deep-processing and shallow-processing groups indicates in relation to the study.
Key Points for Full Credit
Deep-processing group recalled more words (28) than shallow-processing group (14)
Indicates that deeper, meaningful processing led to stronger memory
Must interpret — not just restate the numbers
Rubric note: Award the point only if the response interprets the means in context. A correct response describes that the deep-processing group recalled MORE words (28) than the shallow-processing group (14), indicating deeper processing led to stronger memory. Simply listing the numbers without interpretation does NOT earn the point.
✍ FRQ Practice · Identify ethical guideline
Researchers studying the misinformation effect showed 200 participants a video of a car accident. Before the study, every participant was told the procedure would involve answering misleading questions and that they could stop at any time without penalty. Some participants reported feeling mildly stressed by the questions. Afterward, the researchers met with each participant individually to explain the true purpose, reveal which questions were misleading, and answer any concerns.
Adapted study, Unit 2: Misinformation effect
Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers in this study.
Key Points for Full Credit
Identifies debriefing (post-study meeting to explain true purpose and reveal misleading questions)
OR informed consent (told about misleading questions before starting)
OR right to withdraw (could stop at any time without penalty)
Must connect to a specific feature of THIS study
Rubric note: Award the point if the response correctly identifies an ethical guideline applied in the study. Acceptable: informed consent (telling participants about misleading questions before starting), right to withdraw (stop at any time), or debriefing (post-study meeting to explain the true purpose). Must connect the guideline to a specific feature of THIS study. Identifying confidentiality is NOT correct since it is not described.
✍ FRQ Practice · Generalizability
Researchers tested whether top-down processing affects how people perceive ambiguous images. They recruited 50 art history majors from a single university in the northeastern United States. Each participant was shown 20 ambiguous line drawings and asked to identify what they saw. The results showed that art history majors were significantly more likely than the general population to identify the drawings as famous paintings.
Adapted study, Unit 2: Top-down processing
Explain the extent to which the findings of this study can be generalized, using specific evidence about the participants.
Key Points for Full Credit
Makes a claim that findings cannot be generalized to the wider population
Cites specific evidence: all art history majors, single university in the northeastern U.S.
Explains why: people without art training would likely respond differently
Rubric note: Award the point if the response makes a claim about generalizability AND backs it up with specific participant evidence from the stimulus. Acceptable evidence: participants were all art history majors, all from a single university in the northeastern U.S. A vague answer like 'the study is generalizable because it had 50 people' does NOT earn the point.
✍ FRQ Practice · Argumentation: support/refute
Researchers tested participants' eyewitness memory by showing them a video of a robbery, then asking questions one week later. Half of the participants received a leading question that contained false information ('Did you see THE knife the robber used?' when no knife appeared in the video). The other half received a neutral question. On a later recognition test, 38% of participants who received the leading question reported seeing a knife. Only 4% of participants in the neutral group did so.
Adapted study, Unit 2: Misinformation effect
Explain how the research findings support or refute the misinformation effect.
Key Points for Full Credit
Uses specific finding: 38% false reports in leading-question group vs. 4% in neutral group
Connects it to the misinformation effect — post-event misleading information distorted memory
Must link the finding to the concept
Rubric note: Award the point only if the response (1) uses a specific finding (38% vs. 4% false reports after the leading question), AND (2) accurately connects it to the misinformation effect (misleading post-event information distorting memory of the original event). Mentioning only the finding OR only the concept without linking them does NOT earn the point.
✍ FRQ Practice · Propose a defensible claim
A psychology teacher wants to advise students on the most effective way to study for a vocabulary test. Studies show that (1) information rehearsed across several short sessions is recalled better than the same total time in one long session, and (2) words processed for meaning (used in a sentence) are remembered better than words processed for surface features (counting the letters).
Unit 2: Memory and study strategies
Propose a specific and defensible claim, based in psychological science, about how students should prepare for a vocabulary test.
Key Points for Full Credit
Takes a specific, defensible position grounded in psychological science
Recommends spaced practice (multiple short sessions) AND deep encoding (processing words for meaning)
Must commit to a specific claim — not 'different strategies work for different people'
Rubric note: Award the point only if the response proposes a SPECIFIC, defensible claim taking a position grounded in psychological science. Acceptable: 'Students should space out their study across multiple short sessions and process words for meaning to maximize recall.' NOT acceptable: 'Studying is important.' / 'Different methods work for different people.' / Restating the question without taking a position.
✍ FRQ Practice · Research method + statistic interpretation
A psychologist examined whether daily crossword puzzle use was related to working memory in older adults. She surveyed 300 adults aged 65 and older, asking how many days per week they did crossword puzzles, and gave each participant a digit-span test. Adults who reported doing crosswords 'almost daily' had a mean digit span of 6.4, while those who reported 'rarely or never' had a mean digit span of 5.8.
Adapted study, Unit 2: Working memory
Identify the research method used in this study and describe what the difference in mean digit-span scores indicates in the context of the study.
Key Points for Full Credit
Identifies the method as correlational / survey (no random assignment or manipulation)
Interprets the difference (6.4 vs. 5.8) as a small positive association — not causation
Must NOT call this an experiment
Rubric note: Award the point only if the response (1) correctly identifies this as a correlational or survey study (NOT an experiment — no random assignment or manipulated variable), AND (2) interprets the small difference (6.4 vs 5.8) as a weak association between crossword frequency and working memory. Should not claim causation. Identifying the method as 'experiment' does NOT earn the point.
✍ FRQ Practice ·
Key Points for Full Credit
Uses BOTH correlations: r = 0.91 (test-retest) AND r = 0.78 (with benchmark)
r = 0.91 supports reliability — consistent scores across time
r = 0.78 supports validity — scores align with an established measure of similar ability