In a study by Milgram et al. (1986), a stooge (confederate) intruded into a line of people waiting in a queue. 'Hey buddy, we've been waiting. Get off the line and go to the back!' was one of the verbal responses to the intrusion.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2019). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. 2(a) Most likely answers: ∞ Field experiment: conducted in different locations in New York city. Two IVs: number of intruders (one or two), and number of buffers (zero, one, or two) yielding a complete crossing of variables by level, resulting in six experimental conditions. DVs: qualitative verbal comments and quantitative behaviours (physical actions and non-verbal behaviours. ∞ Observation: naturalistic, covert, participant, structured (qualitative verbal comments and quantitative behaviours (physical actions and non-verbal behaviours). Marks: 1 mark for identification (2 marks if both identified). 1 mark for elaboration/how used ‘in this study'.
2. 2(b) Most likely answer: Quote from study: the queue constitutes a small scale social system that possesses three distinguishing features: ∞ it regulates the sequence in which people gain access to goods or services (first come first served) ∞ the ordering (of people in a line) is given a distinctive spatial form ∞ maintenance of the line depends on a shared knowledge of the standards of behaviour appropriate to this situation (i.e. people have a script for queuing) Note: 0 marks for 'length/size'; people in a line, etc. Marks: 1 mark for basic answer. 1 mark for elaboration/example. ×2. Any feature not above = 0.
3. 2(c)(i) Answer: ∞ physical action ∞ nonverbal objections Marks: 1 mark for each correct identification. Allow 'physical objections/aggression, etc.'
4. 2(c)(ii) Most likely answer: ∞ physical action. laying on of hands; tugging at the sleeve; tapping the shoulder of the intruder; pushing the intruder firmly out of the line ∞ nonverbal objections. dirty looks; hostile stares; (similar words) gestures to the intruder to get to end of the line Note: no other response is creditworthy; these are the examples listed in the study. Allow similar terms, e.g. 'disgust facially'. Marks: 1 mark for each correct example. 0 marks for any example not above.
5. 2(d) Marks: Question requires discussion; always plural of each argument, and always requires conclusion. 1 mark for each advantage/disadvantage (however detailed) and related to the question up to 4 max. 2 marks max for two strengths/weaknesses unrelated to the question. 1 mark for conclusion. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited): Strengths: ∞ people behave naturally because they believe that the stooge is just another participant (1 mark). In this study the participants thought the stooge intruding into the line was another member of the public (1 mark) ∞ a stooge keeps participants naïve about the nature of the study ∞ a stooge may be used as a model to suggest to participants how to behave ∞ use of a stooge may prevent demand characteristics ∞ a stooge may standardise a procedure Weaknesses: ∞ partcipants are deceived (no informed consent to participate in a study) and this is unethical ∞ participants may not behave naturally because of the influence of the stooge ∞ a stooge may bias results because of their appearance, their manner, or because of some other feature ∞ the stooge may not be good at acting out an experimenters' instructions ∞ a stooge may be instructed to act in ways in which people would not normally behave Conclusion: any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented. 1 mark if appropriate. A conclusion is a 'decision reached by reasoning' and so a summary of points already made scores 0 marks.