Build your IB Psychology HL understanding of Learning and Cognition by evaluating cognitive bias, reconstructive memory, emotion and biological, social and cultural influences on thinking.
Describe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.
Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:
- the aim of the study linked to a cognitive bias.
- a description of the research method used
- description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.
- use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)
- description of the use of triangulation in a case study
- identification of the sample that was used;
however, precise sample sizes are not required
- controls used by the researcher
- materials used in the study
- the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Anchoring bias: Englich and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)
- Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) - participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.
- Confirmation bias: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).
- Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
- Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
- Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Schwann (1978),
- Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) - participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.
- Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973)
If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description.
Explain reconstructive memory with reference to one relevant study.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons and causes, for reconstructive memory.
Explanation of the nature of reconstructive memory could include, but is not limited to:
- Confabulation - a memory based on a fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memory, often believed to be true in spite of contradictory evidence
- schema processing - memory processing based on prior knowledge in the form of schemas that could result in distortion
- false memories - recalling an event that never happened and believing it to be true
- post-event information - any details or information encountered after an event has occurred that can influence or alter a person's memory of the original event.
Examples of appropriate studies could include but are not limited to:
- Bartlett's (1932) "War of the ghosts" study
- Brewer and Treyens's (1981) study on in-office schema
- Neisser and Harsh's (1992) Challenger disaster study
- Loftus and Pickerell's (1995) "lost in a mall" study
- Shaw and Porter (2015) - implanting false memories of a crime
- Loftus and Palmer's (1974) car crash study
- Yuille and Cutshall's (1986) study of the effect of leading questions on eye-witnesses to a real crime
If a candidate explains reconstructive memory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
If a candidate only describes a relevant study without explaining reconstructive memory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
To what extent is development as a learner influenced by biological factors?
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors on development as a learner.
In order to respond to the command term "to what extent", it is appropriate and useful for candidates to address how cognitive development is the result of complex interactions between biological and sociocultural factors. There appears to be an interaction between biological factors and the experience gained by sociocultural factors, which influences our development.
Candidates may address biological factors in relation to specific aspects of cognitive development (for example memory, intelligence, language or attention) or address biological factors in relation to cognitive development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Responses may refer to biological factors including but not limited to:
- the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development (eg Waber, 2007;
Giedd, 2004;
Chugani et al., 2001)
- the biological maturational component of language acquisition (eg Newport, 1990;
Pinker, 1989;
Chomsky, 1981)
- genetic inheritance in intelligence (eg Deary et al., 2006;
Bouchard et al., 1990)
- brain damage and memory deficits (eg Cowell et al., 2006;
Corky, 1997)
- cortisol and memory deficits (eg Wolf et al., 2001)
- biological basis of attention (eg Ray and Sreedaran, 2015).
Candidates may address one or a small number of biological factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of biological factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires that candidates address the strengths and limitations of one theory demonstrating the influence of emotion on one cognitive process. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
Responses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion, such as intelligence, perception, memory or decision-making.
Examples of theories include, but are not limited to:
- Brown and Kulik's flashbulb memory theory
- Bower's theory of state-dependent cues
- Frank's emotional precommitment model of decision making
- Loftus on weapon focus
- intrusive memory theory.
Evaluation of the selected theory includes, but is not limited to:
- degree of empirical support
- methodological considerations
- contrary findings or explanations
- involvement of biological or social factors
- accuracy and clarity of the concepts
- application of the theory.
If a candidate evaluates more than one theory, credit should be given only to the first evaluation, unless the other theory or theories are clearly used to evaluate the main theory;
for example, used to illustrate the strengths and/or limitations of the main theory.
If a candidate evaluates one theory as it relates to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the discussion of the first cognitive process.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
Discuss how social and/or cultural factors affect one cognitive process.
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 that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses, supported by appropriate evidence, of how social and/or cultural factors affect one cognitive process.
Candidates should give a considered review of the way in which social and/or cultural factors have a bearing on one way in which people process information, for example, memory, thinking, perception, attention, decision-making or language. As the concepts of social and cultural factors are arguably very much related, such distinction is not necessary.
Candidates may discuss theories and/or methodological issues as well as giving the findings of studies.
Examples of appropriate factors include, but are not limited to:
- Cultural norms and past experience (Bartlett, 1932)
- Social identity's effect on formation of flashbulb memories (Luminet and Curci, 2009)
- Schooling's effects on encoding strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974)
- The effect of poverty on cognitive processing (Mani, 2013;
Pollitt, 1995)
- The role of environmental factors (Deregowski, 1972;
Segall et al.'s carpentered world hypothesis, 1966).
If a candidate discusses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first discussion.
Candidates may discuss a smaller number of factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.