IB Psychology HL 3.4 Learning and Cognition Topic Practice

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.

Thinking and decision-making are closely related cognitive processes and candidates do not need to make a distinction between the two.

Candidates may address examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:
- specific biases (eg confirmation, optimism, selective attention)
- illusory correlation
- effects of framing
- heuristics (eg anchoring, availability, representativeness)

Examples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Chapman and Chapman (1969);
Stone et al. (1997) on confirmation bias
- Englisch and Mussweiler (2001);
Strack and Mussweiler (1997) on anchoring bias
- Hamilton and Gifford (1976);
Snyder and Swann (1978);
Song and Schwarz (2007) on illusory correlation
- Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects
- Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991);
Verhulst et al (2010);
Palmer and Peterson (2012) on halo effect

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- Applications of findings - for example, in marketing or in understanding health-related behaviour
- Cultural and gender differences in cognitive biases
- Difficulties in studying cognitive processes - eg isolation of variables and measuring cognition;
artificial nature of experimental research
- Explanations of why cognitive biases occur - eg linking to Dual Process Theory

Candidates may address one bias in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biases in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

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.

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.