📚 AS CIE Psychology: Unit Test Mock Paper Walkthrough | AS CIE 心理学：单元测试模拟卷解析
This walkthrough breaks down a purpose-built mock test covering the four core studies at the heart of the Cambridge International AS Psychology syllabus (9990): Milgram (obedience), Piliavin et al. (bystander intervention), Bandura et al. (aggression), and Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping). By working through each question, you will learn how to decode command words, select key evidence, and build answers that hit the highest mark bands. Short-answer and essay-style questions are analysed together with examiner-style commentary on common pitfalls.
本文详细解析一份专为 AS CIE 心理学（9990）设计的单元测试模拟卷，覆盖四大核心研究：米尔格拉姆的服从实验、皮利亚文等人的地铁助人实验、班杜拉等人的攻击行为研究以及山本等人的黑猩猩帮助行为研究。每道题都会拆解答题逻辑、关键词汇和评分细则，帮助你在简答题和论述题中精准得分，并避开典型错误。
1. Mock Paper Structure and Command Words | 模拟试卷结构与指令词解读
The mock paper contains four short-answer items (2–4 marks each) directly targeting the core studies and two extended-response questions: an 8-mark evaluation of ethics and a 12-mark essay on situational versus dispositional influences in obedience. All questions use CIE command words – ‘state’, ‘describe’, ‘explain’, ‘discuss’ – that tell you exactly how deep your answer needs to be. Time allocation mirrors the real exam: roughly one minute per mark, so pace yourself accordingly.
模拟卷包含四道针对核心研究的简答题（每题2–4分），一道8分的伦理评价题和一道12分的论述题，讨论服从的情境与个体因素。题目全部采用 CIE 指令词，如“陈述”“描述”“解释”“讨论”，这些词汇决定了答案的深度与结构。答题时间建议按一分一分钟分配，模拟真实考试节奏。
2. Question 1: Milgram’s Prods – Describe Their Role | 问题1：米尔格拉姆实验中的“督促语”及其作用
The question: ‘Describe the prods used by the experimenter in Milgram’s study of obedience (3 marks).’ A strong answer lists the four standard prods in order and clarifies that they were delivered only if the participant hesitated. Prod 1: ‘Please continue.’ Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’ Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue.’ Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice; you must go on.’ The examiner expects three distinct points: the nature of the prods (verbal prompts), their escalation, and the fact that after Prod 4 the session was terminated if the participant still refused.
题目：“描述米尔格拉姆服从实验中实验者使用的督促语（3分）。”高分的回答会按顺序列出四条标准督促语，并指出它们只在被试犹豫时才使用。督促语一：“请继续。”督促语二：“实验要求你继续。”督促语三：“你绝对必须继续。”督促语四：“你别无选择，必须继续。”考官期待的三个要点：督促语是口头提示、逐步升级、且第四句后若被试仍拒绝实验即终止。
Many students lose a mark by failing to mention the sequential nature or the termination rule. Keep your description factual and concise; there is no need to evaluate.
很多同学因为漏掉“顺序递进”或“终止规则”而丢分。答题时只需事实性描述，无需评价。
3. Question 2: Piliavin’s Independent Variables – Identify and Explain | 问题2：皮利亚文研究中的自变量识别与解释
The question: ‘Identify two independent variables in the Piliavin et al. (1969) subway study and explain how each was manipulated (4 marks).’ For full marks, name two IVs and then explain the manipulation. Possible choices: the victim’s apparent responsibility (drunk condition – carrying a bottle and smelling of alcohol vs. cane condition – appearing ill and sober); the victim’s race (black or white); the size of the confederate group (alone, with a model helper, or with a model helper who departed). Explain, for instance, that responsibility was manipulated by dress and behaviour while all other features of the emergency were held constant.
题目：“找出皮利亚文等人（1969）地铁实验中的两个自变量，并解释每个自变量是如何操纵的（4分）。”要拿满分，需指明两个自变量并解释操纵方式。可选择的自变量：受害者表面责任（醉酒状态——持酒瓶、散发酒味 vs. 拄拐状态——看似生病、未饮酒）；受害者种族（黑人或白人）；同样团队规模（单独一人、样本助人者在场、助人者随后离开）。例如，解释责任变量时需说明：通过着装和行为来操纵，同时保持紧急情境的其他特征不变。
If you name a variable but do not explain its manipulation, you can only earn half marks. Avoid vague phrases like ‘they changed the victim’; specify what changed.
如果只说出变量名称而未解释如何操纵，只能得到一半分数。避免像“他们换了受害者”这样模糊的说法，一定要说明具体变动。
4. Question 3: Bandura’s Control Condition – Purpose and Logic | 问题3：班杜拉研究中的控制条件及其逻辑
The question: ‘Explain why Bandura et al. (1961) included a control condition in which children did not observe an aggressive model (3 marks).’ A full explanation must reference the need for a baseline comparison. The control group saw a non-aggressive adult who assembled toys quietly; this allowed Bandura to demonstrate that any aggression shown by the experimental group was specifically linked to the modelled aggression, not to mere exposure to an adult or to frustration. By removing the aggressive content, the study isolates modelling as the cause of imitative aggression.
题目：“解释班杜拉等人（1961）为何要设置一个儿童未观察攻击性榜样的控制条件（3分）。”完整的解释必须提及基线比较的需要。控制组观看的是一个安静拼装玩具的非攻击成人榜样；这样班杜拉就能证明实验组出现的攻击行为确实源于榜样攻击行为，而非仅仅因为有成人出现或儿童感到挫折。去掉攻击内容后，研究得以分离“榜样作用”作为模仿攻击的真正原因。
A common error is to state simply ‘for comparison’ without expanding on what is being compared. You need to show what would be confounded without the control – for example, the arousal caused by seeing an adult in the room.
常见错误是只写“为了比较”而不展开比较什么。你需要说明如果没有控制组会混淆什么变量，比如见到成人本身就会引起某种唤起。
5. Question 4: Yamamoto’s Operationalisation of Helping | 问题4：山本实验中帮助行为的操作化定义
The question: ‘State how helping behaviour was measured in the study by Yamamoto et al. (2012) (2 marks).’ A precise answer: helping was recorded when a chimpanzee correctly selected and passed the target tool to a familiar partner who could not reach it, even in trials where the partner was in an adjacent booth and there was no direct benefit to the donor. Researchers counted the frequency of correct tool transfers under both ‘can see’ and ‘cannot see’ conditions.
题目：“陈述山本等人（2012）研究中帮助行为是如何测量的（2分）。”精确回答：当黑猩猩正确选择目标工具并递给无法够到它的熟悉伙伴时，即记为一次帮助行为，即使在伙伴处于相邻隔间且帮助者自身得不到直接回报的试次中也一样。研究者分别计数“能看到”和“不能看到”条件下正确工具传递的频率。
Stating ‘they helped each other’ is too vague. You must include the operational act – the transfer of a specific object – and mention that the donor received no immediate reward, which rules out simple instrumental learning.
只写“它们互相帮助”太过笼统。必须包含可操作的具体行为——传递特定物品——并指出帮助者得不到即时奖励，以此排除简单的工具性学习。
6. Question 5: Evaluating Milgram’s Ethics (8 marks) | 问题5：评价米尔格拉姆实验的伦理问题（8分）
This 8-mark question expects a balanced discussion of ethical breaches and possible justifications. Unpack three or four key issues: deception (participants believed they were administering real shocks); lack of informed consent (the true purpose was concealed); right to withdraw (prods made it difficult to leave despite verbal protests); and protection from harm (many showed extreme distress – trembling, sweating, nervous laughter). For each, provide evidence from the study, then weigh the counterarguments: Milgram’s debriefing was extensive, a follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad to have participated, and the social importance of understanding obedience arguably outweighs the temporary stress. Conclude with a reasoned judgement about whether the study could be ethically approved today.
这道8分题要求平衡讨论伦理缺陷与可能的辩护理由。可展开三至四个关键问题：欺骗（被试以为自己在施加真实电击）；缺乏知情同意（研究的真实目的被隐瞒）；退出权（督促语让被试即使口头抗议也难以离开）；免受伤害的保护（许多被试表现出极度紧张——发抖、出汗、神经质笑声）。每个要点都要引用研究中的证据，然后提出反论：米尔格拉姆进行了详尽的事后解释，后续问卷显示84%的被试对参与感到满意，而且理解服从的社会意义或许足以超越暂时的压力。最后给出一个有理据的判断：该研究今天能否获得伦理批准。
A mark-losing approach is to describe ethical issues without linking them to specific procedures in Milgram’s study. Keep the word ‘because’ central to your writing.
丢分方式之一是只描述伦理问题，而不把它与米尔格拉姆实验的具体步骤联系起来。写作中要始终围绕“因为”这个逻辑连接词。
7. Question 6: Essay – Situational vs Dispositional Obedience (12 marks) | 问题6：论述情境因素与个人因素对服从的影响（12分）
The 12-mark essay is the heart of the mock paper. A top-band answer will define key terms (situational factors, dispositional factors), adopt a clear stance, and use at least two well-detailed pieces of research. Milgram’s original obedience study provides strong situational evidence: 65% of participants went to maximum 450 V in a prestigious university setting, with experimenter authority and incremental demands. Variations (e.g., remote-victim feedback vs. touch-proximity) further illustrate the power of context. To address dispositional factors, the essay could include the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al.) or contrast Milgram’s findings with low-obedience rates in other cultures. Balanced evaluation is essential – the best essays explicitly argue that the situation exerts a more consistent influence, but that individual differences (e.g., empathy, moral reasoning) moderate the degree of obedience.
这道12分论述题是模拟卷的核心。高分作文会先定义关键词（情境因素、个体因素），立场鲜明，并至少使用两项详细的研究证据。米尔格拉姆的原始服从实验提供了强有力的情境证据：在著名大学的实验室里，65%的被试在权威实验者与逐级递升的要求下达到了最高450伏。实验变式（如远程反馈与接触靠近）进一步显示了情境的威力。讨论个体因素时，可引入权威人格理论（阿多诺等），或对比米尔格拉姆与其他文化中较低的服从率。平衡的评价至关重要——最优秀的文章会明确主张情境通常具有更一致的影响力，但个体差异（如同理心、道德推理）会调节服从的程度。
Do not spend half the essay just describing the studies. After a succinct outline of relevant research, devote the bulk of the response to genuine discussion – compare, contrast, and critically weigh the claims.
不要花大半篇幅单纯描述研究。简洁概括相关研究后，应把大部分笔墨用于真正的讨论——比较、对照、批判性地权衡观点。
8. Common Mistakes That Cost Marks | 高频丢分点与避坑指南
Mistake 1: Confusing ‘state’ with ‘explain’. If the question asks you to state something, a single accurate sentence is enough; adding unnecessary elaboration wastes time and invites errors.
Misconception: Treating all IVs as equal in Piliavin. Some students list ‘presence of a model’ but forget to specify that it was systematically manipulated across trials – it is the systematic variation that qualifies it as an independent variable.
Pitfall: Ethical evaluation without balance. On ethical questions, presenting only criticism may imply you do not understand the nuance. Always show you can see both sides.
Essay trap: Unsubstantiated assertion. In the 12-mark essay, a claim such as ‘personality is more important than situation’ demands evidence. Every point needs a study or theoretical backing.
错误一：混淆“陈述”与“解释”。如果题目要求陈述，一个精确的句子就够了；多写不必要的延伸既浪费时间又容易出错。
误解：把皮利亚文研究中的自变量不加区分地列举。有些同学列出“榜样助人者存在”，却忘记指出它是在不同试次中系统操纵的——只有系统操纵才会被定义为自变量。
陷阱：伦理评价缺乏平衡论证。在伦理题中只写批评可能让人觉得你不理解问题的复杂性。一定要展现两面思考。
论述题雷区：无证据断言。在12分论述题中，类似“人格比情境更重要”的论断必须有证据支撑。每个观点都要有研究或理论作为依据。
9. How to Use This Mock Paper for Revision | 如何利用本模拟卷进行复习
Treat this mock paper as a diagnostic tool. After attempting each question under timed conditions, compare your answers with the exemplar points in this walkthrough. Highlight where your response matches, but more importantly, note what is missing. Reread the sections of the original studies that correspond to the gaps – did you forget the order of prods, or overlook how the target tool was identified in Yamamoto? Turn those gaps into flashcards and revisit them every other day. For the essay, practise converting the bullet-point plan into full paragraphs, always linking back to the question stem.
把这份模拟卷当作诊断工具。计时完成后，逐一对照本文的示例要点。标记你已写对的地方，更要关注缺失的部分。针对漏洞重新阅读相关原始研究的细节——你是否忘了督促语的顺序，或没记清山本实验中目标工具如何被识别？把这些漏洞做成记忆卡，每隔一天复习一次。对论述题，反复练习将提纲扩展为完整段落，并时刻紧扣题干的问法。
Published by TutorHao | Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导Cancel reply