Cognitive Approach

Sample Responses
- With feedback

Inthinking subject resource- John Crane

Student name:___________________________________________
INDEX:

# Question: Page #

Research methods and ethics

SAQ

1 Describe how one research method is used in the cognitive approach. 3

2 Describe one ethical consideration related to one research study in the 5

 1

cognitive approach.

ERQ

3 Contrast two research methods used in the cognitive approach. 7

Cognitive processing

SAQ

4 Explain one study of one model of memory. 10

5 Explain schema theory with reference to one research study. 12

6 Explain one study of schema theory. 14

7 Describe one theory or model of thinking or decision making with reference to 16

one study.

ERQ

8 Contrast two models of memory with reference to research studies. 18

Reliability of cognitive processes

SAQ

9 Explain one study of reconstructive memory. 21

10 Explain one bias in thinking and decision-making with reference to one study. 23

11 Explain one cognitive bias, making use of one study. 24

ERQ

12 Discuss the use of one or more cognitive biases in thinking and decision 26
making.

Emotion and cognition

SAQ

13 Explain one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process. 28

ERQ

14 Discuss the effect of emotion in one cognitive process. 30

Cognitive processing in the digital world (HL only)

ERQ

15 To what extent does technology have a negative and/or positive effect on 33

 2

cognitive processes?

1. Describe how one research method is used in the cognitive approach.

What is the question asking?

● Identify one research method – for example, experiment, interview, observation,
correlation or case study.
● Describe the research method in detail.
● Outline one study that uses the research method, using appropriate vocabulary to
demonstrate an understanding of the method.

Sample response
One research method used at the cognitive approach is experiments. Experiments are used to
establish a cause and effect relationship between two or more variables. In an experiment, the
research manipulates an independent variable and measures its effect on a dependent variable
while all other variables are held constant. Participants are randomly allocated to conditions and
the environment in which the study is done is controlled to make sure that extraneous variables
do not have an effect on the results of the study.

One example of an experiment is Loftus & Palmer’s study on how leading questions may affect
one’s memory of an automobile crash. Participants watched a movie in which two cars hit one
another. The participants were given a questionnaire with several questions about the accident,
but only one question was actually important. One question asked the participants how fast the
car was going when the accident occurred. For some participants, the question ended with
"when the two cars smashed into each other." For other participants, the word smashed was
replaced with bumped, hit, collided or contacted. The IV was the intensity of the verb in the
leading question. The DV was the speed that the participants estimated. The researchers used
an independent samples design, so the participants experienced only one condition. Otherwise,
they would not have been able to carry out the experiment because the participants would have
figured out the actual goal of the study. Therefore, deception is sometimes used in experiments
to avoid the participants demonstrating demand characteristics, where they do what they think
that the researcher wants them to do. As part of the experiment, when the task is completed,
the researcher must debrief the participant and reveal any deception.

The results of the experiment showed that the stronger the intensity of the verb, the higher the
estimate of the speed of the car when the accident happened. As the data was quantitative,
statistics could be calculated to see if the results were significant or due to chance. This showed
that the wording of the question had a direct cause and effect relationship on the estimation of
speed made by participants.

356 words
 3

What are the common problems for this question?

● An incorrect example of a research method is given – e.g. lesioning.

● A correct study is identified but the research method is not correctly identified - for
example, saying that Loftus & Palmer is an example of a questionnaire.
● More than one research method or more than one study is described.
● The study is outlined in great detail, but without reference to how it demonstrates the
research method stated.
● There is no description of the research method.

Comments

Comment [1]: An appropriate research method is identified.

Comment [2]: The reason experiments are used is identified.

Comment [3]: The research method is described. This meets the demands of the command
term.

Comment [4]: An appropriate example from the cognitive approach is identified.

Comment [5]: The aim of the study is correctly stated.

Comment [6]: The way in which the experiment was used is clearly explained.

Comment [7]: The results are clearly stated.

Comment [8]: Another example of why an experiment is used.

2. Describe one ethical consideration related to one research study in the cognitive
approach.

What is the question asking for?

● Describe one ethical consideration (e.g. confidentiality, undue stress or harm, informed
consent, debriefing)
● Describe the aim, procedure and results of one study from the cognitive approach.
● Link the ethical consideration to the study.

Sample response
One ethical consideration is the use of deception. Deception is when a participant is not made
fully aware of the purpose of a study or is intentionally misinformed. Deception is often used by
researchers to hide the true aim of an experiment. Often if the participants knew the aim of the
 4

experiment they would demonstrate demand characteristics – either trying to give the
researchers what they wanted or trying to behave in a way that made them look their best,
something known as social desirability effect. Deception is problematic because it undermines
the concept of “informed consent.” It violates the trust between a researcher and a participant.
In addition, it increases the chance that a participant will withdraw his/her data after the
experiment. Therefore, debriefing is an important part of any experiment with deception. It is
important that the deception is justified and that the participant is allowed to withdraw data. In
addition, debriefing is a chance for the researcher to make sure that there was no harm done as
a result of the deception.

A classic study that used deception was Loftus & Pickrel's Lost in the Mall study. The aim of the
study was to see if participants would “create memories” of a biographical event that never
happened to them. Participants were given four short stories describing childhood events, all
supposedly provided by family members, and asked them to try to recall them. Relatives had
provided the stories. One of the stories, describing a time when the participant was lost in a mall
when he/she as a child, was false. In the study, 25% of the participants said that they
remembered this event even though it never actually occurred. They often described the event
in great detail. Loftus concluded that being asked to recall something that didn’t happen, but that
they thought their parents said happened, can lead to the creation of false memories.
Upon revealing the deception, participants may have felt like they looked foolish. However,
Loftus could not do a study on false memory by first revealing the actual aim of the study.
Although the deception was justified, the experiment is still problematic from an ethical
standpoint.

358 words

What are common problems for this question?

● The ethical consideration is only mentioned but not described.
● The candidate does not identify an appropriate ethical consideration – for example –
“using animals” or “videotaping”
● The candidate addresses more than one ethical consideration. Only the first one is
assessed.
● The study is not highly relevant or is superficially linked to the ethical consideration – for
example, “undue stress or harm” in Glanzer & Cunitz’s study of the serial positioning
effect.
● The study is not from the cognitive approach.
● There is no clear description of the study or there are inaccuracies.
● There is no explicit link between the study and the ethical consideration – and it is up to
the reader to make the link.

Comments

● Notice that the ethical consideration is in the first sentence.

● This should be a habit– ALWAYS answer the SAQ in the first sentence.
 5

● A clear definition of the term of the given.

● The study is clearly identified.
● The rest of this paragraph addresses the command term.
● It is a clear description of the ethical consideration.
● The study is clearly described.
● You can see the aim, procedure, results and implications.
● This final section links the study back to the question.

3. Contrast two research methods used in the cognitive approach.

The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks.
Comments about the essay are included below.

What is the question asking for?

● Two research methods should be clearly explained.
● One study for each research method should be described. The studies must be clearly
linked to the cognitive approach.
● There should be a clear explanation of the differences between the two research
methods.

Sample response
The cognitive approach studies how we process information. One cognitive process that is
studied in this approach is memory. The cognitive approach uses different research methods
because each one has its own strengths and limitations. This essay will look at the different
strengths and limitations of experiments and questionnaires in the study of memory.

Experiments are often used because they have several key strengths. First, because an
independent variable is manipulated and its effect on a dependent variable is measured while
other variables are controlled, a cause and effect relationship can be determined. In addition,
because they are highly standardized, they may be replicated. This allows other psychologists
to “redo” the experiment to attempt to get the same results. This means the reliability of the
results can be tested. The data in an experiment is usually quantitative and can be statistically
analysed for significance. Finally, participants are randomly allocated to groups to avoid
characteristics of the individuals influencing the results.

One experiment was done by Loftus & Palmer (1974). They wanted to test if a person’s memory
could be influenced by a leading question. Participants watched a video of a car crash and then
were given a questionnaire. One of the questions was different “how fast was the car going
when it x’d the other car?” Some participants had the word “smashed” others had words like
“hit” or “bumped.” The researchers found that the participants who had a verb with a higher
intensity (smashed), remembered a higher speed of impact than those that had the word
“bumped.”
 6

Experiments have limitations. This situation is rather artificial – when we see an accident, there
is powerful emotion which is not true when watching a video in a classroom. This means that
the study lacks ecological validity.

Another research method is questionnaires. Brown and Kulik used questionnaires to study
flashbulb memory – that is, vivid memories that are the result of strong emotional and personal
experiences. Questionnaires are standardized in that all participants get the same list of
questions. Questionnaires, unlike experiments, get mainly qualitative data and analysis looks
for trends in the data, but not statistical significance. And unlike experiments, they are
naturalistic. The situation is not artificial and so the studies have higher ecological validity.
Unlike experiments, there are no controls of other variables that may influence the results of the
study.

In their study, they asked 40 black and 40 white American male participants to fill out a
questionnaire regarding the death of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King - as well as of
someone they personally knew. They were asked a series of questions about where they were
when they heard about it, who they were with, what they were doing and how they found out.
They found that 90% recalled a significant amount of detail about the death of a loved one;
however, social identity played a role in the flashbulb memories of the assassinations. 75% of
black participations had FBMs of the death of MLK, whereas only 25% of white participants did.
The researchers concluded that personal relevance plays a key role in the creation of FBMs.
One limitation of the study is that there was no way to verify the accuracy of the participants’
memories. In addition, when it came to the death of JFK or a loved one, it is possible that social
desirability effect played a role – that is, they may have said that they had memories of the
president’s death because they did not want to appear “unpatriotic.”

Unlike experiments, questionnaires cannot be used to establish a cause and effect relationship.
Although they can be given to other participants to see if there is a similar result, because the
data is often not quantitative and able to be statistically analysed, it is not always possible to
establish the reliability of the findings. Questionnaires on flashbulb memory also rely on
retrospective data, which means it is difficult to establish the validity and reliability of the data.
Finally, a key difference between questionnaires and experiments is that in questionnaires
participants are not randomly allocated to conditions. Questionnaires often use purposive
samples; in other words, the participants are chosen because of a certain trait that the
researchers want to study. This is also true in quasi-experiments which, like questionnaires,
cannot then establish a cause and effect relationship.

Questionnaires are less artificial and allow the participant more “voice” than an experiment and
produce richer data for analysis. Experiments isolate variables to study cause and effect
relationships. Together these methods give us a richer understanding of cognitive processes.
 7

765 words

Marking the response

Focus on the question

The response is focused on the question. The introduction clearly identifies the two research
methods that will be used and there is some indication of the differences that will be discussed.

Knowledge and understanding

The response demonstrates a clear understanding of the two research methods. Psychological
terminology is used effectively and key terms are unpacked to demonstrate knowledge and
understanding.

Use of research
The studies are clear examples of the research methods described. The studies are clearly
described in terms of the research methods.

Critical thinking
The contrast command term requires a different form of critical thinking than an "evaluate" or
"discuss" question. The focus of the critical thinking should be on discussing the differences
between the two research methods. Evaluation of research studies is not necessarily helpful in
making an argument and therefore would have been inappropriate in this response. Any
evaluation of the studies is directly linked to the research method used.

Clarity and organization

The response is well organized and the language of the response communicates ideas
effectively.

What are common problems with this question?

● Two distinct research methods are not contrasted - for example, "true" experiments and
quasi-experiments. These are both experiments and not two distinct research methods.
● The focus is not on the cognitive approach. Students must be careful not to use
biological research in lieu of cognitive research.
● The studies are evaluated, but not with regard to the method that was used.
● Research methods are simply evaluated, leaving the "contrast" up to the reader.
Contrasting of the methods is only implicit.
● The focus is on evaluating studies, rather than explaining the differences between two
research methods.

4. Explain one study of one model of memory.

 8

What is this question asking?

● A model of memory must be identified and described.
● A study that is supports the model should be described in terms of the aim, procedure
and results.
● There should be an explanation of how the study supports the model.

Sample response
One model of memory is the “Multi-Store Model.” This model was the first to separate memory
into sensory, short-term and long-term memory. The model argues that we are bombarded with
sensory stimuli. When we pay attention to the stimuli they pass through sensory memory and
into short-term memory. There the information is held until either other information displaces it
or, if we rehearse it, it is moved to long-term memory. When we remember something, we are
moving that information from long-term memory back into short-term memory so that it can be
used. This simple model was supported by a study by Glanzer and Cunitz.

The researchers read a list of 15 words to participants and asked them to recall the words in
any order. Before they did this, the researchers randomly allocated participants to one of three
conditions. The words were read one at a time and then the participants were either asked to
recall the words immediately after the list was finished, with a 10-second delay or with a 30-
second delay. During the delays, the participants were asked to count backwards from 100.
When there was no delay, they found that participants remembered the first few words and the
last few words on the list. This indicates that the words earlier on the list were most likely
rehearsed and moved into LTM – what is known as primacy effect. The words at the end of the
list were still in STM – what is known as recency effect. However, when they were asked to
count backwards, they only remembered the first few words on the list. This shows that through
rehearsal some of the words had been placed in LTM, but counting backwards had displaced
the information in STM. This study is evidence that the Multi-store model is correct – and that
long-term and short-term memories may be stored in different places and that information in
STM may be displaced.

320 words

What are common problems with this question?

● The model is not clearly described. Descriptions require a good amount of detail and
should not be limited to a single sentence.
● The study is not clearly described with regard to the aim, procedure and results.
● There is no clear explanation of what the study tells us about the model.

Comments

Comment [1]: A model of memory is identified.

 9

Comment [2]: The model is clearly described.

Comment [3]: An appropriate study is identified.

Comment [4]: The procedure of the study is clearly described.

Comment [5]: The results are explained with reference to the model.

Comment [6]: Again, the results are linked to the model.

Comment [7]: The response ends by linking the study back to the question.

5. Explain schema theory with reference to one research study.

The sample below is an exemplary response.

What is this question asking?

● Explain what is meant by schema theory.
● Describe the aim, procedure and findings of one study related to schema theory.
● Link the study back to schema theory.

Sample response
A schema is a mental representation that helps us to understand and predict the world that we
live in. It is the way we organize categories of information and the relationships among them.
Schema influence attention and learning. Piaget said that learning is a combination of
accommodation (when we change schema based on new information) and assimilation (when
we add change information to fit existing schema). We tend to notice things that are in line with
our schema and there is the possibility that we forget or distort memories of things that are not
in line with our schema.

One study that demonstrates how our schema influence our memory is a study done by Brewer
& Treyens. In this study, they had 30 participants wait one at a time in an office for 35 seconds.
The participants thought that they were waiting to start an experiment, but the experiment had
already begun. The room had both "schema congruent" items - that is, things that are normally
in an office - and "schema incongruent items" - things that would not usually be seen in an
office. In addition, there were some things that are typically in an office that were not there.
When they were called into the “experiment” they were asked to write down as many items as
they could recall from the office. Participants remembered items that they expected to see, that
is, those things that match their schema of an office. They also made errors where they added
items that were not there, but which match an office schema – for example, bookshelves with
books. Things which did not match their schema – for example, a piece of bark or a screwdriver
– were not remembered. This shows how our schemas – like an office schema – help us to
identify and understand an office space and predict what we will find in it.
 10

311 words

What are common problems with this question?

● Schema theory is not well explained - that is, terms are not defined and the role of
schemas is not clearly outlined.
● The study is poorly described - that is, the aim, procedure and results are not clearly and
accurately stated.
● The study is not directly linked to schema theory. The writer has left it up to the reader to
figure out the connection.

Comments

Comment [1]: The term “schema” is clearly defined.

Comment [2]: The theory is outlined in some detail and is also linked here to the study that will
be described below.

Comment [3]: An appropriate study is identified.

Comment [4]: The link to schema is clearly made and explained.

Comment [5]: Procedure is accurately described.

Comment [6]: The link back to the theory is explicit.

6. Explain one study of schema theory.

Sample Response
Schema theory is based on the idea that we are active processors of information and that our
behaviour and cognitive processes can be influenced by our schema. A schema is a mental
representation of the world. Schema is a way that our mind organizes information. They are
expectations based on our past experiences. Since we are cognitive misers, we use schema to
simplify the world and predict things with this mental framework based on what we have seen in
the past. Schema are formed through a process known as assimilation where when we
encounter something incongruent with our current schema we can add this to our schema so
that we will be prepared in the future with this situation. However, since we are information
processor, we often only notice that that are congruent with our schema, so we often see and
remember what we expect to see. Schemas can affect behaviour in a variety of ways – one of
which is the distortion of memories.

Brewer and Treyens did a study on the impact of schemas on memory. For this experiment,
they had 86 university psychology students as participants. They asked each participant
individually to wait in an office for a short time while the researcher went to finish the experiment
with another participant. Then, after 35 seconds the research came to get the participant and
 11

brought her into another room where they were asked to recall objects in the office. The objects
in the office were either congruent or incongruent with an office schema – that is, a mental
representation of an office. For example, the office had pencils and a stapler, but there were
also objects like a brick and a screwdriver.

The students were asked to remember these objects under three different conditions: a recall
condition, a drawing condition and a recognition condition. The researchers found with the
recall and drawing conditions that the participants remembered objects congruent with their
schema of an office but did not recall objects that were incongruent; however in the recognition
condition where they were asked to choose objects from a list, participants were able to also
recognize objects that were incongruent with their schema as they were prompted by the
researcher.

This study supports schema theory as unless prompted by the researcher, participants were
unable to remember objects incongruent with their schema. As the participants did not create a
“photographic memory” of the office, they used their past experience to predict what would be in
the office when asked to recall the objects. This shows that we are active processors of
information and that we reconstruct our memories based on our schema.
439 words

Comments
● The schema theory is fairly well explained.
● The concept of assimilation is not well explained, but there is a basic understanding
demonstrated.
● The study is well described. Even though not all of the results are outlined, one key
result is explained. This is enough. It is not required that students know every detail of a
study; for example, it is also not important that there were 86 participants.
● The response ends with a clear link back to the question.
● 8 marks.
7. Describe one theory or model of thinking or decision making with reference to one study.

What is this question asking?

● You must first identify a theory or model of thinking or decision-making and describe it in
good detail.
● A study should be described which supports the theory or model.
● There should be an explicit link between the study and the theory or model. This means
that there should be a clear statement about what the research tells us about the theory
or model.

Sample response 1
One model of thinking is the “Dual Process Model.” This model argues that there are two
systems of thinking. System 1 is an automatic and intuitive way of thinking based on short-cuts
called “heuristics.” Heuristics focus on one aspect of a complex problem and ignore others. This
 12

mode of thinking is fast and efficient but is prone to mistakes when our assumptions do not
match the reality of a specific situation. Often System 1 works with what is believed to be a
“correct” answer.

System 2 thinking is slower and requires more effort. It is also more abstract. Rational thinking
allows us to analyse the world around us and think carefully about what is happening, why it is
happening, what is most likely to happen next and how we might influence the situation. Often
System 2 works with what is believed to be a “probable” answer.

The Stroop Effect is a good example of how these two systems work. In the original study by
Stroop, participants were given a list of colours. The words were written in colours that were not
the same as the word itself – so, the word “red” was written in blue ink. Participants were asked
to read the list of colours as quickly as possible. This showed System 1 at work. The task was
automatic and concrete. The second task was to read the colour of the words, rather than the
words themselves. This required System 2 thinking – it required more effort. Participants
struggled with the second task as they often read the word instead of the colour, showing the
automatic response of System 1 thinking.
270 words

What are common problems with this response?

● There is no theory or model outlined or the theory or model is not well described.
● Key vocabulary is not defined.
● The study is not well described or is not explicitly linked to the theory or model.

Sample Response 2
One theory of thinking and decision-making is the Dual Processing Model. In this model of
thinking, people use two types of thinking to handle information and complex tasks - system 1
and system 2 thinking. In system 1 thinking, the thinking process is fast, automatic and based
on previous experience. As we practice something, it moves from requiring system 2 thinking to
system 1 thinking. For example, this would be how one ties a shoe after repeated practice; the
process has become automatic. System 2 thinking is slower, more deliberate and effortful, but
also less prone to mistakes. We tend to use this system in unfamiliar situations when our
system 1 thinking is not working. However, we prefer to use system 1 thinking as we are
cognitive misers. System 1 thinking uses mental shortcuts called heuristics - such as anchoring
bias - where we fail to think logically about a decision using System 2 thinking and base our
decisions on information that is immediately available to us.

One study done on the Dual Processing Model was done by Wason. He asked participants to
carry out a logical puzzle involving four cards. This puzzle was abstract, but if thought through
correctly, could be relatively easy to solve. He found participants repeatedly chose the wrong
answers and afterward could not explain why they chose the cards that they did. This suggests
that they used their automatic system 1 thinking as opposed to the logic based system 2
thinking. A follow-up study by a different researcher later found that with the same card task, if
the task was not abstract, people were less prone to making mistakes. It appears that our
 13

system 1 thinking is less prone to errors in concrete situations. This study by Wason supports
the Dual Processing Model as participants jumped to an incorrect decision without being able to
explain their thinking process.

Comments
● The model is very well described and there is a clear distinction made between the two
systems of thinking.
● The study is appropriate and described in a manner that is clearly linked to the two
systems of thinking.
● A follow-up of the same study is acceptable as "one study."
● The task could be a bit more precisely explained.
● 8 marks.

8. Contrast two models of memory with reference to research studies.

The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks.
Comments about the essay are included below.

What is the question asking for?

● A clear outline of two models of memory.
● Research to support the models, which does not need to be outlined in a lot of detail, but
an understanding of the role of research in supporting the models should be apparent.
● Differences in the two models should be clearly explained.

Sample response
Memory is a complex cognitive process. It involves the encoding, storage and retrieval of
information. As the process is complex, models are used to explain how memory works. An
early model of memory was proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin, called the Multi-Store model. This
model was the first to distinguish between short-term and long-term memory stores. A later
model is schema theory, which argues that memories are not “stored” as whole memories, but
are reconstructed. These two models explain different aspects of memory and have different
evidence and limitations.

The Multi-store model explains that all memory is taken in through our senses. This information
enters our sensory store, where if we pay attention to it, it will pass to short-term memory. Short-
term memory is limited in duration and capacity. According to Miller, STM can hold only 7 plus
or minus 2 pieces of information. Short-term memory lasts for six to twelve seconds. When
information in the short-term memory is rehearsed, it enters the long-term memory store in a
process called “encoding.” When we recall information, it is retrieved from LTM and moved back
into STM.

The case study of HM provided biological support for two different memory stores. HM had a
temporal lobectomy to end his epileptic seizures. The loss of his hippocampus meant that he
could retrieve information from before the surgery, but he could not create new memories. He
 14

could, however, hold a conversation, showing that he had working (STM) memory. It appears
that the hippocampus is responsible for transferring information from short-term memory to
long-term memory. This supports that there is more than one store for memory.

Biological research has also supported the idea that repetition is necessary for memory.
Repetition leads to long-term potentiation of the synapses, making the connection “stronger.”
Finally, research by Glanzer & Cunitz found that when given a list of words without distraction,
people tend to remember the beginning of the list (repetition leads to LTM) and the end of the
list (still in STM).

Although this model helped researchers to conceptualize memory, there were some limitations.
First, it does not address all different types of memory. For example, in the HM study it was
found that procedural memory was not affected by the removal of the hippocampus. In addition,
emotion appears to play a role in the strength of memories – something called flashbulb
memories. The argument is that repetition may not be necessary for all memories – but instead
a powerful emotion, possibly tied to adrenaline and the amygdala, may create memories.
Finally, the model does not address memory distortion. This is a key difference between the
MSM and schema theory.

Schema theory is a model of memory in which we store “mental representations” that come
from our prior experience and knowledge. When we create a memory, we do this in light of our
schema. Schema act as a filter. As Brewer & Treyens found, when remembering an office,
people don’t create a memory of “the office”, but instead rely on their knowledge of offices to
form a memory. Participants were asked to wait in an office for 35 seconds for the experiment to
begin. When they were called in, they were asked to recall as many items as they could from
the office. The researchers found that they tended to recall items that were in a typical office,
even if they were not in the office they had been in (for example, bookshelves). In addition, they
failed to recall items that were not typical of an office (a brick). In other words, memories are
created not just by sensory input as the MSM argues, but through top-down processing in which
memories of past similar experiences influence what is remembered and how it is remembered.

According to schema theory, we tend to pay more attention to stimuli that match our schema
and not pay attention to stimuli that do not. This is a significant difference to the MSM in that
the MSM does not explain why we pay attention to a stimulus or not. In addition, schema theory
argues that memory is reconstructed – that is, when I recall a memory, I am not producing a
“snapshot” of the memory, but instead activating different schema. Remembering a day at
school involves schema of people I know, the school building itself, a “script” for how a day at
school goes, etc. Because memory is reconstructed, distortion can occur. I remember a friend
being at school today because that is my schema for English class – even though the friend was
absent. This distortion is something that the MSM cannot explain.

Schema theory has a few limitations that are different from the MSM. Schema theory does not
explain where memories are stored. And although there is an attempt to explain different types
of schema, it does not address STM and LTM as different. Clearly when a schema is
 15

“activated”, it comes into STM. Schema theory as an explanation of memory cannot be well
understood without the MSM.

The MSM explains that if memories are not rehearsed, then the memories are lost or “decay.”
Schema theory does not clearly explain why memories are forgotten. Finally, as seen above,
the MSM has biological support– whereas schema does not have clear biological support.

The two models together give us a good understanding of how memory may work. Both models
have different limitations, but both models fail to address different types of memory and the role
emotion plays in the creation of memories.
920 words
Marking the response

Focus on the question

The response is focused on the question. The introduction clearly identifies the two models that
will be used and there is some indication of the differences that will be discussed.

Knowledge and understanding

The response demonstrates sound understanding of the two models. Psychological
terminology is used effectively and key terms are unpacked to demonstrate knowledge and
understanding.

Use of research
Research is used to support claims. Several studies are used to demonstrate breadth of
evidence, rather than depth. This is an acceptable approach. Notice that there is not a lot of
detail about procedures. This is important because the focus of the response is supposed to be
a contrast of the two models. Too much focus on the details of the studies will take time away
from writing an effective response to the question.

Critical thinking
The contrast command term requires a different form of critical thinking than an "evaluate" or
"discuss" question. The focus of the critical thinking should be on discussing the differences
between the two models. Evaluation of research studies is not helpful in making that argument
and therefore would have been inappropriate in this response.

Clarity and organization

The response is well organized and the language of the response communicates ideas
effectively.

What are common problems with this question?

● The models are not clearly described. The descriptions should be clear and concise.
● A theory about memory is used rather than an actual model of how memory works.
Models should explain how memories are created (encoded) and retrieved. Theories
such as flashbulb memory would not be acceptable for this question.
 16

● Drawings are used instead of clear descriptions of the models. Drawings are not
assessed - but they can be referred to in order to support a well-written description.
● Similarities of the models are discussed. This is not assessed - only differences are
assessed.
● Although the two models are described in some detail, it is up to the reader to decide
what the differences between the two models are.

9. Explain one study of reconstructive memory.

The sample below is an exemplary response.

What is this question asking?

● The theory of reconstructive memory must be explained.
● A study of reconstructive memory must be described, including the aim, procedure and
findings.
● There must be a link that explains what this study tells us about reconstructive memory.

Sample response
Psychologists argue that episodic memory is not just a photographic snapshot in the brain, but
instead it is reconstructed. Schema theory says that memory is based on schema. When we
encode and retrieve episodic memories, we are influenced by our perceptions, past knowledge
and personal beliefs. However, some argue that there is a different type of memory, called
flashbulb memory. This memory is the result so of powerful emotions, so some argue that it is
not reconstructed, but vivid, accurate and not open to distortion in the way that normal
memories are.

After the explosion of a US space shuttle was watched live on television, Neisser & Harsch
(1992) decided to do a study to investigate if the claim that flashbulb memories are not
reconstructive is true. On the day of the accident, he asked his students to write a short
description of how they heard the news about the accident. They were asked a series of
questions including: What time was it? How did you hear it? Where were you? And who was
with you? They were also asked how much television coverage of the event they had watched.
2 ½ years later they were given the same questionnaire. This time, in addition to the questions
asked on the first questionnaire, they were also asked to rate how sure they were of their
answers. The findings showed that although the participants were very confident of their
memories, the mean score for correct answers to the questions was 3 / 7. The students had
misremembered the events which they assumed were “flashbulb memories.”

The study shows that our memories are not as reliable as we would like to believe. Instead, the
students most likely reconstructed the events based on a combination of probability (the usual
behaviour at that time of day) or based on other information that they have heard over the years
about the event.
314 words
 17

What are the common problems with this question?

● There is no clear definition or explanation of reconstructive memory.
● The study is not relevant to the question.
● The study is poorly described, lacking a clear or accurate aim, procedure or findings.
● The question of reconstructive memory is not explicitly linked to the study.

Comments

Comment [1]: The type of memory that is reconstructed is identified.

Comment [2]: A brief explanation of schema theory as linked to the reconstructive nature of
episodic memory.

Comment [3]: The aim of the study is stated.

Comment [4]: The procedure is outlined in good detail. It is not necessary to also explain that
there were interviews that were given to see if they could be cued to recalled the information.
This gives a good explanation of the study.

Comment [5]: The results are clearly stated.

Comment [6]: Link back to the question.

10. Explain one bias in thinking and decision-making with reference to one study.

Sample Response
English and Mussweiler studied anchoring bias and its effect on courtroom sentencing.
Anchoring bias is a heuristic, a mental shortcut that humans use due to being cognitive misers.
When we engage in System 1 thinking we make a quick decision without considering all the
information that is available and rely on previous knowledge or schemas, as well as using
heuristics to make decisions. Anchoring bias is a shortcut by which a decision is influenced by
an “anchor.” This is a value that is presented and which we then use as a basis for judgement.
For example, when bargaining in the marketplace, if you are told that the original price is 1000
dollars, you are more likely to assume that the item has a higher value than if the original price
was given as 600 dollars.

English and Mussweiler carried out a lab experiment using German law students to test the
effect of anchoring bias on courtroom sentencing. The participants of the study were presented
with a rape case and were asked to assist in the sentencing process. Participants were
randomly allocated to one of two different conditions. One group was given a high-anchor,
saying the prosecution recommends a 44-month sentence, whereas the other group was given
a low anchor of 12 months. The results found that the high anchor group opted for a significantly
higher sentence; the sentence was on average 8 months longer than the low-anchor condition.
 18

The results of this study demonstrate the effect of the cognitive bias. Since the law students did
not have time to study the case fully, their decision relied partially on the anchor given to them.
This allowed them to make a quick decision without using too much energy.
286 words

Comments
● The bias in thinking and decision-making is explained.
● The study is relevant and linked back to the bias, although the link could be a bit
stronger.
● 8 marks

11. Explain one cognitive bias, making use of one study.

The sample below is an exemplary response.

What is this question asking?

● A cognitive bias must be identified and defined.
● The cognitive bias must be explained – that is, why it happens should be outlined.
● One study should be described with regard to the aim, procedure and findings.
● There should be an explicit link made between the study and the cognitive bias.

Sample response
When making decisions, we often rely on past experience or the information that is immediately
available to us. This is referred to as “system 1 thinking.” In order to reduce the amount of
thinking required, we often rely on “heuristics” or mental short-cuts to make decisions. Heuristics
are a cognitive bias – and although they often help us to make decisions, they sometimes lead
to illogical or incorrect decisions or conclusions.

One example of a cognitive bias is anchoring bias. Anchoring bias is when the first piece of
information we receive influences our decisions. For example, when we hear that the original
price of a good was 100 dollars but is now marked down to 80 dollars, we find that more
attractive than walking into a store and seeing the same thing for 80 dollars. Seeing the 100
first makes us feel like we are getting a better deal. The value of a good is ambiguous – that is,
we don’t know how much it should be, so this information helps us to form an opinion and make
a decision.

One study that showed this cognitive bias was done by Englich and Mussweiler. They wanted to
see if anchoring bias would affect a jury’s verdict. A sample of law students was given a rape
case and was asked, based on the evidence, how long the punishment should be. In one group
they were told that the prosecution recommended a 34-month sentence; in the other group a
12-month sentence. The study showed that when given the suggestion of 34 months, the
students recommended on average a longer sentence. Since they would not have an absolute
sense of how many months to punish the offender, they used the “anchor” that they were given
to make their decision. This is an example of how a cognitive bias may affect one’s behaviour.
 19

308 words

What are common problems with this response?

● There is no cognitive bias identified, or several cognitive biases are identified.
● The cognitive bias is poorly defined, often using terms to define themselves – for
example, confirmation bias is when we see only what confirms our own biases.
● A study is not clearly outlined and linked to the cognitive bias.

Comments

Comment [1]: Demonstrates general understanding of what is meant by a “cognitive bias.”

Comment [2]: A cognitive bias is identified and then described.

Comment [3]: Why the cognitive bias works is explained.

Comment [4]: An appropriate study is identified.

Comment [5]: The study is clearly outlined.

12. Discuss the use of one or more cognitive biases in thinking and decision making.

Sample Response
People are prone to errors in thinking and decision-making due to the way we process
information. There are trends in how we make these errors; those trends are called cognitive
biases. These errors often occur as we are cognitive misers so we prefer to quickly come up
with an answer as opposed to logically think through a problem. The Dual Processing Model
explains this as a tendency to choose System 1 over System 2 thinking. System one thinking is
faster, but is more prone to being incorrect. Two examples of cognitive biases are anchoring
bias and the peak-end rule. Anchoring bias is when we base our estimates around a given value
(the anchor) even if the value is implausible or highly unlikely. We do this because we are
uncertain of how to make a decision so we use the anchor as a reference point for making what
we believe is our own decision. The peak-end rule is about how we tend to remember things
either at the peak of experience or at the end. This is done because we have difficulties
remembering the average experience over time, so we make decisions based on the most
salient information.

Strack and Mussweiler did a study of anchoring bias where they asked participants to estimate
the age when Gandhi died. The researchers asked whether the participants thought he died
before or after a certain age. The participants were in one of four conditions: a plausible high
anchor, a plausible low anchor, and implausible high anchor or an implausible low anchor. The
researchers found that participants given the low anchors consistently guessed lower values for
Gandhi’s age of death even when the low anchor was implausible. Those with the high anchor
 20

consistently guessed higher values for Gandhi’s age of death, but the implausibly high anchor
value did not seem to have as great an effect. This could be because it was not possible - it was
140 years old. This seems to indicate that anchoring bias plays a strong role in decision making,
unless it is completely unreasonable.

This study is strong in that there is a clear manipulation of variables; the researchers can know
it was, in fact, the high or low anchor that impacted the results. However, there is the question of
ecological validity because the study is highly artificial and Gandhi’s age at death would most
likely be a meaningless piece of information to the participants. It seems logical that the
participants with nothing else to go on would base their estimates on an anchor value. But in the
real world, they would most likely have some idea whatever it was they were estimating. In
addition, real decisions may come with a cost (like making a bid on a house). This means that
there would be other ways to make a decision besides relying on an anchor value. For important
decisions, they people usually consult with friends or family.

Kahneman did a lab experiment on the peak-end rule to see how the end of an experience
would impact participants recollections of it - and thus affect decision-making. In the first stage
of the experiment, participants placed their hands in freezing cold water for one minute. After a
short break, he had them do it again, but this time after one minute he released warm water into
the tank raising the temperature slightly. The researchers asked the participants which of the
two conditions they would be most willing to do again. The majority of the participants chose the
second condition even though they had to put their hands in the freezing water for the same
amount of time in both conditions. The researchers suggested that this was because the
participants based their decision on the end of the second condition rather than reflecting on the
overall experience.

This study was done in a highly controlled environment, so the researchers were able to control
for confounding variables. The study was carried out in the lab so there is the question of
ecological validity. The study is highly artificial and it is questionable to what real-life situations it
could be applied. Secondly, there is a question as to how the participants gauged time during
the experiment. Perhaps as they were familiar with the feeling of the cold water from the first
condition, the second condition felt shorter and their decision was not made due to the peak-end
rule.

Although both studies have the problem of low ecological validity, they were also supported by
other research suggesting these biases do occur in real life. It is important for us to recognize
our errors and thinking as it will help us to live better lives. Unfortunately, we are prone to
making incorrect illogical judgments.
796 words

Comments
Focus on the question: The response is focused on cognitive biases, but does not have a
discussion. 1 mark
 21

Knowledge and understanding: The response demonstrates sound knowledge of the two biases
and uses psychological terminology effectively to address the question. The reasons for the
biases is clearly explained. 6 marks

Use of research: There are two studies that are clearly described and explained. There is a
clear link between the studies and the cognitive biases. 6 marks

Critical thinking: There is good evidence of critical thinking. Ideas are generally well explained
and linked to the study and/or bias. However, there is no general discussion of biases to meet
the discussion command term. 4 marks

Clarity and organization: The response is well-organized and ideas are effectively
communicated. 2 marks

Total: 19 marks

Predicted: 6
13. Explain one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.

What is this question asking for?

● Identity one cognitive process: memory, language, attention, problem-solving, thinking or
decision-making.
● One theory should be clearly described which shows how emotion may affect the
cognitive process.
● The effect on the cognitive process should be clearly explained.

Sample response
One theory about how emotion may affect one cognitive process is Flashbulb Memory Theory
by Brown & Kulik (1977). Brown & Kulik believed that strong emotional experiences led to
memories that are detailed, accurate, vivid, and resistant to forgetting. They argued that there
were two key components to the creation of a flashbulb memory. First, there is the element of
surprise. The researchers proposed the "special mechanism" hypothesis that suggested that
there were biological factors that led to the creation of these memories, although they did not
know what those mechanisms were. Secondly, the researchers argued that the event had to
have "personal meaning" for the person. If there was the combination of a strong emotional
response based on surprise and personal meaning, then the result is a flashbulb memory.

Researchers now know that when adrenaline reaches the brain it activates the amygdala in the
limbic system to send a message that something important or dangerous has happened. The
amygdala plays a key role in creating emotional memories.

McGaugh & Cahill (1995) did an experiment to study the role of emotional arousal on memory.
The participants were divided into two groups. Each group saw 12 slides and heard a different
story. In the first condition, the participant heard a boring story about a woman and her son who
 22

paid a visit to the son’s father in a hospital where they watched the staff in a disaster
preparation drill. In the second condition, the participant heard a story where the boy was
involved in a car accident where his feet were severed. He was quickly brought to the hospital
where the surgeons reattached the injured limbs. Then he stayed in the hospital for a few weeks
and then went home with his mother. A third group heard the same story as the second group,
but they were given beta-blockers. Beta-blockers block the receptor sites for adrenaline in the
amygdala. Two weeks later the participants were asked to come back and have their memory
tested. Two weeks later the participants were asked to come back and have their memory
tested.

The researchers found that the participants who had heard the more emotional story had a
better recall of specific details of the story. They could also recall more details from the slides.
However, if they heard the emotional story and had received beta-blockers, they had no better
recall than the first group that did not hear the emotional story. This may be evidence to support
Brown & Kulik’s original theory of the "special mechanism". It appears that emotion may have
an effect on the accuracy of one’s memories.
432 words

What are common problems with this question?

● The cognitive process is not identified and the response is simply a study of emotion.
● A study is outlined but the theory itself is not explained in any detail.
● The actual effect of emotion on the cognitive process is not stated in any detail.

Comments
Comment [1]: A theory is clearly identified.
Comment [2]: The theory is clearly outlined.
Comment [3]: A study is used that supports the theory.
Comment [4]: The aim and procedure of the study are clearly outlined.
Comment [5]: The results are clearly stated.
Comment [6]: Link back to the theory.

14. Discuss the effect of emotion in one cognitive process.

The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks.
Comments about the essay are included below.

What is the question asking for?

● A theory of how emotion affects one cognitive process should be outlined.
● Two research methods should be clearly explained and explicitly linked to the theory.
● The research should be evaluated in light of the theory.
 23

Sample response
Psychologists have argued that our memory is not a “snapshot” of the past and that we often
distort our memories as a result of post-event information. This means that when we are
exposed to other information after the original event, that new information changes our
memories. However, researchers have shown that this is not always true. The Flashbulb
Memory Theory argues that when a memory is created of an event that is both emotional and of
personal importance, it is more likely to be vivid, accurate and not distorted by post event
information.

One study that showed this was carried out by Yuille and Cutshall. After a robbery in
Vancouver, a group of eyewitnesses gave their story to the police. The witnesses had seen the
thief shoot the owner of the shop and then watched as the police killed the thief. Four months
later the eyewitnesses were asked to take part in a study of memory. They were asked to write
down all they could remember from the day of the crime. They were also asked if they had
seen the yellow panel on the car – but the panel was blue. The researchers found that the post-
event information (the leading question) did not distort their memories. In addition, their retelling
of the event was highly accurate when compared to the original reports. The event was both
emotional and personally important (they could have been killed). This is good evidence that
flashbulb be memories may exist.

The study is strong because it is a field study, done under naturalistic conditions. But it would
be difficult to replicate the study, so it is not possible to eliminate participant variables in
determining why the individuals were able to recall the event so well. It could also be that they
rehearsed the story in retelling it often over the past few months.

McGaugh and Cahill wanted to see if the fight or flight response which happens when we are
afraid would help in creating a flashbulb memory. In their study, they had two groups. Both
groups watched a series of slides – but one group heard a boring story about a boy visiting a
hospital and the other group heard a traumatic story of the boy having his legs severed and
reattached. When they were asked two weeks later to recall details of the slides, those that
heard the traumatic story remembered significantly more details.
The researchers then had a third group that heard the traumatic story but also received a beta-
blocker which blocks the receptor sites for adrenaline on the amygdala. They found that there
was no difference between their recall and the recall of the boring story group. It appears that
adrenaline may play a role in the accuracy of memory. This seems to support the role of
emotion in the creation of flashbulb memories. However, this study was done under highly
controlled conditions and thus lacks ecological validity. In addition, it was only two weeks later.
It is not clear how long these memories could be accurate.

A final study was done by Sharot et al. She wanted to see if there was a difference in memories
between those who were in Manhattan or not on the attack on 9/11 five years after the event. In
her study, she had participants who had been in Manhattan and who had not been in
Manhattan. She first had them describe where they were and what happened on 9/11. She
asked them to rate how strong their memories were. She then had participants lie in an fMRI
 24

while words were flashed in front of them. They were asked to either think of some objects with
regard to summer or to September. She found that the participants who were downtown had
more activity in their amygdala than the other group. In addition, they reported having stronger
memories.

It appears that there is biological support for the theory of Flashbulb memories and that even
after five years, the amygdala is more active in the recall of the memories. This study used
participants who had really experienced a traumatic event, unlike the study by McGaugh and
Cahill. Yet, it is still a concern that the study has low ecological validity – being asked to recall
memories of 9/11 while in an fMRI is not a normal situation. It is important, however, in this
study that the results were about the activity of the amygdala so this simply shows that the recall
of memories is different for those who were in downtown Manhattan. It is not possible to verify
the accuracy of their memories, which is something that could be done in the Yuille and Cutshall
study. But the Y & C did not have evidence of the response of the amygdala.

There is cognitive and biological support for the theory of Flashbulb memories. It appears that
fear and/or surprise, combined with personal relevance, has a key role in forming highly reliable
memories.
823 words

Marking the response

Focus on the question

The response is focused on the question. The theory is fairly well outlined and the essay is
focused on the demands of the question. 2 marks.

Knowledge and understanding

There are three studies that are explicitly linked to the theory of flashbulb memory. There is
good understanding of the biological factors involved in the process of flashbulb memory,
although this could be a bit more carefully explained. There is good use of terminology relevant
to the studies used. 5 marks.

Use of research
The studies are clear examples of flashbulb memory. There is generally good detail. Results
could be a bit more carefully stated. 5 marks.

Critical thinking
There is evidence of critical thinking, both in the evaluation of the studies and in the choice of
studies. However, critical thinking could be more developed and more a focus of the essay. 4
marks.

Clarity and organization

The response is well organized and the language of the response communicates ideas
effectively. 2 marks
 25

What are common problems with this question?

● The essay focuses on the reliability of memory, rather than on the role of emotion on
memory.
● Studies are not clearly linked to flashbulb memory.
● The critical thinking is not relevant - for example, focusing on ethical considerations in
the Sharot study, rather than on how it shows the role of emotion in FBM.

15. To what extent does technology have a negative and/or positive effect on cognitive
processes?

Sample response
Today’s teens are “digital natives.” They live in a world of technology. When I get up in the
morning, it is my phone that wakes me up. I spend a good part of my day looking at a screen –
either on my phone or on my laptop. Social media like Snapchat is part of how teens interact
with others. One of the questions psychologists have is to what extent does technology have a
negative effect on cognitive processes? The answer is that it is complicated. Storm and Mueller
and Oppenheimer have shown that technology may have a negative effect on memory.
Meanwhile, Uttah has shown that there may be some positive effects of technology.

Mueller and Oppenheimer did a study to see if technology has a negative effect on our ability to
recall information. Participants were either given a laptop or a pen and paper and were told to
take notes during a series of lectures. The lectures were pre-recorded to make sure that
everyone heard the same lecture. They were told that they would be tested on the content of the
lectures, but they could not take their notes home with them. On the day of the test, one group
was told that they had 10 minutes to study from their notes – while the other group did not get
the chance to do that. Interestingly, there was no difference in the no study group. But in the
group that could study, those that took notes by hand were able to answer significantly more
questions than the laptop group. This may mean that it is not the way in which notes are taken
as much as how they are read that may have an effect on memory and recall.

Storm carried out a study with university students who were randomly allocated to three
conditions. First there was the “Internet condition” where they were told to use Google to find
answers to a series of difficult questions. The “memory condition” was asked to just use their
own knowledge and the “control condition” was not asked any questions. Later, they were asked
a series of easy question. All were given access to Google but were not told to use it. Storm
found that 86% of those who had used it before, used it to answer the easy questions, while
only 60% of the other two groups did the same.

Both of these studies indicate that there may be some negative effects to using laptops.
However, there are some limitations of the studies. Although the situation is realistic for
students, the content was disconnected from their learning. This is not realistic and may be why
there was the difference. Also, Storms study assumes that looking things up actually means that
they were unable to answer the question without consulting the computer, but maybe it was just
 26

habitual behaviour. But both studies are easily replicable, so if researchers replicate the studies
we can find out if the results are reliable.

Uttal did not study memory, but argued that technology may help to improve a student’s spatial
reasoning skills. Uttal carried out a meta-analysis of over 200 studies looking at how playing
video games may increase spatial skills which could be beneficial to math and science.
Although this is good news, the sample was predominantly male, so the results cannot be easily
generalized to women. In addition, it is not clear how the studies were chosen; there could be
both publisher bias and researcher bias.

The problem with research on digital natives is that there is a lot of bias in the research. It is
assumed that we need to memorize things like in the past, but this is no longer true. So, it is
difficult to say whether the effects are “negative” or “positive.” Also, it is important that research
be done under natural conditions. The problem is that when computer use is self-reported,
people often lie so that they people don’t think that they are addicted to computers. More
research will be needed to determine if the effects are overall good or bad.
680 words

Comments
Focus: The introduction states the question and the argument is outlined. The response is
focused on the demands of the question. 2 marks

Knowledge and understanding: Generally demonstrates good knowledge and understanding

related to the question; vocabulary is not always directly linked to the argument - e.g.
publication or researcher bias. 4 marks.

Use of research: The first study is well explained and linked to the question. The other two
studies lack clear details with regard to the procedure and findings to help guide the reader. 4
marks.

Critical thinking: There is some evidence of good critical thinking - for example, in the final
paragraph discussing “positive” vs. “negative” effects of technology. Some critical thinking lacks
development. 4 marks.

Clarity and organization: The essay is clearly written and well organized. 2 marks.

Total marks: 16

IB predicted grade: 6