Hall et al. (2010) only studied the taste of jam and the smell of tea, but their participants were not told the full truth about the study.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. (a) Participants were recruited as they passed by a tasting venue set up in the store. They were asked if they were willing to take part in a 'quality control' test of the jam and tea assortment at the store.
2. (a) This is an opportunity sample, gathered by asking participants to take part who were there at the time.
3. (b) Concurrent detection if the participants voiced any concerns immediately after tasting or smelling the manipulated jam or tea.
4. (b) Retrospective detection if at the end of the experiment (either before or after the debriefing) the participants claimed to have noticed the manipulation.
5. (b) Sensory-change detection as a more implicit form of detection, even if the participants did not consciously report that something went wrong with their choice, we registered whether they for any reason described the taste or the smell of the chosen sample as somehow being different the second time around (i.e. tasting/smelling stronger, weaker, sweeter, etc., as determined by consensus agreement between two experimenters listening to the recorded experiment trials).
6. (c) Deception 1: Participants were recruited by being asked to take part in a 'quality control' test of jam and tea assortment, rather than a psychological study. Necessity: So participants do not know it is a psychological study and therefore do not show any demand characteristics.
7. (c) Deception 2: Researchers presented themselves as independent consultants contracted to survey quality, not as actual researchers. Necessity: So participants do not know it is a psychological study and therefore do not show any demand characteristics.
8. (c) Deception 3: On certain trials, a card magic trick was used to covertly exchange one face for the other. Necessity: Otherwise the study would simply not work.
9. (c) Deception 4: Two sets of 'magical' jars, lidded at both ends with a divider, looked like normal containers but held different jam/tea at each end, allowing a switch. Necessity: Otherwise the study would simply not work.
10. (d) Advantages: a field experiment has an IV, DV and controls.
11. (d) Advantages: often participants do not know they are taking part in a study and so behave more naturally (in the Hall et al. study consent given at the end).
12. (d) Advantages: Most consumer behaviour (e.g. shopping) takes place in the real world and so studies should be conducted in the real world (rather than in a laboratory).
13. (d) Disadvantages: a field experiment may have variables that are more difficult to control than a laboratory experiment.
14. (d) Disadvantages: often participants do not know they have taken part in a study at all (in this study consent given at the end).
15. (d) Disadvantages: It may be reductionist to isolate variables to study (i.e. the IV) when many other variables that are controlled may contribute to consumer behaviour as a whole.
16. (d) Conclusion: any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented. A conclusion is a 'decision reached by reasoning' and so a summary of points already made scores 0 marks.