Practise IB Psychology HL 1.1 by integrating biological, cognitive and sociocultural explanations with critical evaluation of evidence and methods.
Discuss two errors in attribution.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of two errors in attribution.
Appropriate attribution errors may include, but are not limited to:
- fundamental attribution error
- defensive attribution bias
- illusory correlation
- self-serving bias
- modesty bias
- in-group bias
- the halo effect
- actor-observer bias
Responses may refer to studies such as, but not limited to:
- Ross et al. (1977), Jones and Harris (1967) on the fundamental attribution error
- Jellison and Green (1981), Miller (1984), Cousins (1989) on the cultural differences in the fundamental attribution error
- Myers and Bach (1976), Gilovich (1983), Miller and Ross (1975) on the self-serving bias
- Kashima and Triandis (1986), Chandler et al. (1990), Bond et al. (1982) on the cultural differences in the self-serving bias and modesty bias
- Walster (1966) on the defensive attribution bias.
Discussion may address issues such as, but not limited to:
- the context in which these errors appear
- the reasons for their occurrence
- the cultural differences in the expression of these errors
- the degree of empirical support.
If a candidate discusses more than two errors in attribution, credit should be given only to the first two errors.
If a candidate discusses only one error in attribution, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization.
Discuss one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
Examples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to the effects of:
- daylight hours on levels of melatonin
- poverty on neuroplasticity
- environmental stressors on physiological stress response
- interaction with the environment and brain development.
Examples of studies include, but are not limited to:
- Maguire et al.'s (2000) study on neuroplasticity in the hippocampus of taxi drivers
- Marmot et al.'s (1997) Whitehall study on perceived control of workplace stress and cardiovascular health
- Meaney's (1988) study on how environmental stressors lead to hippocampal cell loss in rats
- Rosenzweig and Bennett's (1972) study on stimulating environments and dendritic branching
- Bremner et al.'s (2003) study on environmental stressors and the reduction of hippocampal volume.
Discussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and/or ethical issues
- supporting and contrary findings
- application of the findings
- contributing factors other than the environment affecting physiological processes.
Candidates may discuss one effect of the environment or one physiological process in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of effects of the environment or physiological processes in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss validity and reliability of diagnosis.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review that addresses various aspects of validity and reliability of diagnosis. Conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence. Although a discussion of both validity and reliability is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
The terms "validity" and "reliability" need to be consistently and appropriately used throughout the response. Validity is the extent to which the diagnosis is accurate. The key concern is whether diagnostic systems correctly diagnose people who really have particular disorders and do not give a diagnosis to people who do not. In regard to reliability, responses may refer to two types of reliability: inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability. Inter-rater reliability can be assessed by asking professionals to observe the same person and, using the same classification system, to make a diagnosis. If clinicians make the same decision, the system is reliable. Test-retest reliability indicates whether the same person will receive the same diagnosis if they are assessed more than once by the classification system. Those candidates who refer to a classification system in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis should earn credit.
Examples of research that could be used include:
- studies of inter-rater reliability reveal that some diagnostic categories are more reliable than others, and that diagnosis is more reliable for some types of patients than others (Nicholls et al. 2000).
- Mary Seeman (2007) completed a literature review to examine evidence relating to the reliability of diagnosis over time and found that initial diagnoses of schizophrenia in women, in particular, were susceptible to change as clinicians found out more information about their patients. This research indicates a problem of test-retest reliability with schizophrenia.
- Wakefield et al. (2007) conducted a study that suggested that many life events (e.g. death of loved one, divorce, loss of job) can account for the appearance of some symptoms of depression, but do not meet the criteria for clinical depression. This study addresses the validity of diagnosis.
In practice, professional diagnoses can be influenced by biases and subjective viewpoints of the diagnostician.
If a candidate discusses only validity or only reliability, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [11 marks].
Discuss how cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of the interaction of cognitive and biological factors in emotion.
The interaction is the focus of the question, and a conclusion about this should be clearly made by examining relevant theories and associated studies. Candidates may discuss bi-directionality but they do not have to in order to be awarded full marks.
Relevant theories and studies include, but are not limited to:
- Two-factor theory (Schacter and Singer, 1962)
- Dutton and Aron's "suspension bridge" study (1974)
- LeDoux's model of biological pathways (1999)
- Lazarus's theory of appraisal (1982)
- Speisman et al.'s study on appraisal and emotional arousal (1964).
Candidates may discuss a small number of cognitive and biological factors that interact in emotion in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or a larger number of cognitive and biological factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate discusses only cognitive factors or only biological factors, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4 marks] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization.
If a candidate discusses both cognitive factors and biological factors but does not explicitly discuss interaction between cognitive and biological factors, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [6 marks] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [6 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization.
Describe one ethical consideration related to one research study at the cognitive level of analysis.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration in relation to one research study at the cognitive level of analysis. Ethical considerations can be positive (what guidelines could be followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
The focus of the response should be on the ethical consideration and not on the description of a study.
Research studies could include traditional cognitive studies but could also include studies that investigate biological or sociocultural factors that affect cognitive processes. However, responses should clearly relate the study to the cognitive level of analysis.
If a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration in relation to one or more research studies, credit should be given only to the first ethical consideration described in relation to the first research study used.
If a candidate describes an ethical consideration but with no link made to a research study at cognitive level of analysis, a maximum of [3 marks] should be awarded.
If a candidate describes a study but there is no link to an ethical consideration, [0 marks] should be awarded.
Marks
Level descriptor
0
The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 to 3
There is an attempt to answer the question, but knowledge and understanding is limited, often inaccurate, or of marginal relevance to the question.
4 to 6
The question is partially answered. Knowledge and understanding is accurate but limited. Either the command term is not effectively
addressed or the response is not sufficiently explicit in answering the question.
7 to 8
The question is answered in a focused and effective manner and meets the demands of the command term. The response is supported by appropriate and accurate knowledge and understanding of research.