Build your IB Psychology SL understanding of Learning and Cognition by practising cognitive bias, memory, emotion and biological, social and cultural influences on cognition.
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 is 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: Englisch 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: Wason (1960), Chapman (1969), Stone(1997), Darley and Gross(1983).
- Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
- Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
- Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Swann (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.
With reference to one research study, explain how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process. A specific biological factor must be clearly identified. Possible cognitive processes include, but are not limited to, memory, language acquisition, problem solving, and perception.
Research studies may include but are not limited to:
- Broca's (1861) and Wernicke's (1874) studies on the role of damage to specific regions of the brain on language production and language understanding
- Martinez and Kesner's (1991) investigation of neurotransmission and memory consolidation
- Milner et al. (1968) and Blakemore's (1988) case studies of HM and Clive Wearing, investigating the role of the hippocampus on memory consolidation and retrieval
- Newcomer (1998) or Meaney's (1988) studies on the role of glucocorticoids (cortisol) on memory impairment.
The focus of the response should be on the explanation of how one biological factor affects one cognitive process, not on the description of the study.
If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without explaining how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3 marks].
If a candidate explains how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4 marks].
If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
If a candidate refers to more than one biological factor, credit should be given only to the first biological factor.
If a candidate refers to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process.
Section A markbands
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.