2022, Set 2, Question 2 · Research Design · 7 points
2022 AP Psychology FRQ 2 (Set 2) answers
Shirt prices and judged quality, from a scatterplot
From a web study where people rated shirts at different prices, state the hypothesis, the operational definition and the relationship shown, explain the limit on generalizing, then link three concepts to how shoppers see the shirts.
Skip to the worked answer and scoring (try the question first if you can)
This exam had two free-response questions to answer in 50 minutes, a Concept Application question and a Research Design question, each scored out of 7 points. The current exam has 2 free-response questions in 70 minutes. The skills these questions practice still count.
Lessons this question draws on
1 Read the question
The question is College Board's, from the 2022, Set 2 exam. It starts on page 3 of the PDF. College Board no longer posts this exam, so it opens from the copy of College Board's PDF that the Internet Archive saved on January 16, 2025.
2 Write your answer
Answer each part the way you would on the exam, in full sentences, with your work shown. Your writing saves as you type.
3 Score it
Score your answer against College Board's scoring guidelines, one point at a time. Give yourself a point only when your answer says what the guideline asks for.
Scoring guidelines (PDF, page 7) What the exam readers saw (Chief Reader report)
4 Worked answer and scoring
Here is how a response that earns full credit could read, part by part, and what College Board's scoring guidelines look for, put in our own words. Open a part once you have written your own answer to it. The scoring guidelines PDF above is the official word on every point.
Read the scatterplot before writing: as the price goes up, the quality ratings go down. Dr. Knowles predicted the opposite, but the first bullet asks only what she tested, not what she found. Each of the seven bullets is one point.
Part A 4 points
Model answer
Hypothesis: shirts with higher prices will be rated as higher in quality, a positive correlation between price and perceived quality.
Operational definition of quality: the score each participant gave a shirt on the 1 to 10 rating scale, where higher numbers mean better quality.
Relationship found: a negative correlation.
Why she cannot generalize: her participants were simply people sent to her Web site, not a random sample from the population. They are likely to be internet users with some interest in shirts like these, so they do not represent the general population.
What earns each point
- Higher priced clothing will be perceived as higher quality (a positive correlation between price and perceived quality). A hypothesis states both variables and the direction expected. Saying only that price and quality would be related leaves out the direction.
- Quality was defined as the score from 1 to 10 on the rating scale. An operational definition says exactly how a variable is measured, so it needs the number scale, not just "the rating".
- A negative (inverse) correlation. The points fall from upper left to lower right. The point needs the term negative or inverse; a correlation with no direction, or a sentence describing the trend without that word, does not earn it.
- The people sampled do not represent the wider population. Generalizing needs a sample that resembles the population, ideally drawn at random. College Board also credited a small sample, but the ten dots on the plot are shirts, not people, and the question never says how many people took part, so an unrepresentative sample is the safer reason to give. Not being a true experiment is about cause and effect, not about who the results apply to.
Part B 3 points
Model answer
Mere exposure effect: participants who browse the site for a while, seeing the same floral shirts over and over, come to like them more and may rate them higher.
Cones of the retina: cones in the fovea let participants see the bright colors and fine detail of the floral prints, which shapes how attractive and well made the shirts look.
Prototype: each participant has a mental image of the ideal floral shirt and judges each shirt on the site by how closely it matches that image.
What earns each point
- Seeing the shirts or the site repeatedly leads participants to like the shirts more. The effect requires repeated exposure. Loving a shirt at first sight is a single exposure.
- Cones let participants see the shirts' colors or fine detail. Cones are the photoreceptors for color and detail. Saying they help people see better is too general.
- Participants compare each shirt to their idea of the best or most typical floral shirt. A prototype is the mental ideal of a category. A first version of the design that the others were copied from is a different meaning of the word.
Common mistakes
From what the exam readers reported seeing in 2022 students' answers, in our words:
- Giving the survey or the rating as the operational definition without the 1 to 10 score or scale. Responses often did this.
- Calling the relationship positive or zero when the scatterplot shows a negative correlation, which happened often.
- Saying the results cannot be generalized because the study was not a true experiment, which responses often did instead of addressing whether the sample was representative.
- Describing the mere exposure effect as one exposure to a shirt that changes liking right away. Responses often did this.
- Treating a prototype as the first version of the shirt design, which responses often did.
Question, scoring guidelines and Chief Reader report: College Board, from the Internet Archive. The title, summary and worked answer are ours.