In the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion), participants were told that the study was about vitamins and vision. This was not true, so the participants could not give informed consent.
- (a)Explain one other ethical guideline broken by telling the participants that the study was about vitamins and vision.[2]
- (b)Explain one advantage of telling the participants that the study was about vitamins and vision.[2]
Mark scheme
Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.
- [2] (a) Deception; because it was actually about emotions/adrenalin
- [2] (a) Protection from harm; because even though there was information from the health centre, a participant might have had a reaction to adrenalin / might have been emotionally unstable so been at risk
- [2] (b) so that the participants would not know that they were having their arousal level / physiology manipulated; which means they would not anticipate the physical reactions/ symptoms/effects (of the adrenalin)
- [2] (b) to reduce demand characteristics / don't know real aim
Write your answer and get it marked
On Oracle Prep you can write or photograph your own answer and have it marked by AI against this mark scheme, with feedback on what you missed.
Sign up free →