IB Psychology SL 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).

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- studies on heuristics: Strack and Mussweiler (1997) and Englisch and Mussweiler (2001) on anchoring bias;
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects;
Tversky and Kahneman (1973) on availability heuristic;
Tversky and Kahneman (1973) on representativeness heuristic.
- confirmation bias: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).
- 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.

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

Candidates may discuss one bias in thinking or decision making in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss more than one bias in thinking and/or decision making 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 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account 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) or 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.'s (1968) case study of HM or Blakemore's (1988) case study of 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 how the biological factor affects the cognitive process, not solely on describing the study.

If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].

If a candidate describes 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].

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.

1-3

There is an attempt to answer the question, but knowledge and understanding is
limited, often inaccurate, or of marginal relevance to the question.

4-6

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.

7-8

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.