Paper 1 assessment – SAQs (8 marks)
Markband
0
Level descriptor
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.
Notes
This means that your answer is
not good. You have missed the
point of the question or done
nothing.
These marks translate into the following levels:
Mark
1
2
3
4
5
6+
Level
1
2
3
5
6
7
Bear in mind that you’re looking for an overall average
of 70% for a level 7, 60% for a level 6 and 50% for a level 5.
Getting a level 7 in any one question doesn’t count for
much – you must ensure consistency in your
performance. Your target is always to get as many
marks as possible.
Page | 2
CLOA structured notes
How to use these notes:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Each of the learning outcomes for this level of analysis is set out before you. You
already have these, but it means each page at least starts off making sense.
The command term is briefly explained, sometimes more helpfully than at others. This is
intended to help you to understand the sort of content that should be in your answer, if
this is the question that appears in the exam. Remember that the command term can be
changed for any equivalent or lower command term, so the wording of the learning
outcome isn’t a guarantee of what will be in any exam.
The indicative content is merely a suggestion from me regarding what could go into an
answer that addresses the particular learning outcome (as worded below). This isn’t a
prescription, and it’s not to say that there aren’t other ways of answering the question.
What is included is what makes sense to me and, hopefully, is clear enough to point you
in one of the many right directions.
The line of argument is something that is relevant only for AO3 level questions. In
answering these questions you will be marked on the structure and organisation of your
answer and so you need to write it with a clear line of argument running through. This
will give cohesion and flow to your answer.
The space after my typing is intended for you to add your own notes to mine. This is
because what I’ve put down are only brief sketches of what might go into an answer,
and as we cover additional material in class you may want to note that down so that you
create a more comprehensive set of notes that the ones that I’ve given you here.
I’ve put the assessment criteria on the inside front and back covers, and the command
terms and their definitions at the back as a sort of glossary. These should be used when
thinking about how best to answer a question.
Guard this with your life!
This remains a work in progress. There will be some studies in here that we end up not
using, and some that we will need to put in. Every year things change a little bit; that’s
OK, just don’t be too precious about crossing things out – it shows that you’re
interacting with the resource.
Cognitive level of analysis (CLOA)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
Outline principles that define the cognitive level of analysis
Explain how principles that define the cognitive level of analysis may be demonstrated in
research
Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the cognitive level of analysis
Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the cognitive level of analysis
Evaluate schema theory with reference to research studies
Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process (for example, memory, perception,
language, decision-making) with reference to research studies
Explain how biological factors may affect one cognitive process
Discuss how social or cultural factors affect one cognitive process
With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent is one cognitive process reliable
Discuss the use of technology in investigating cognitive processes
To what extent do cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion?
Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process
Page | 3
C1/2: Outline principles that define the cognitive level of analysis.
‘Outline’ = 8 mark answer
Mental representations guide behaviour (schema theory)
- Loftus & Palmer (1974)
- Carmichael (1932)
- Don’t use Bartlett!
Cognitive processes can be investigated scientifically
- Any experiment within the CLOA (experiment = scientific method); use one
- Glanzer & Cunitz (1968)
- Peterson & Peterson (1959)
- Diemand-Yauman (2011)
Culture affects cognitive processes
- Gutchess (2006)
- Ji (2000): different autobiographical memory details
Page | 4
C3: Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the cognitive level of
analysis
‘Discuss’ means balanced!
How/why particular research methods are used…
Experiments – good way to test hypotheses and identify causative relationships. Cognitive
psychology offers lots of theories that can turn into predictions of behavioural outcomes
under certain conditions; experiments will test these predictions. E.g. any MSM or LoPT
studies where the theory predicts the outcome.
Interviews – cognitive processes are not accessible to the observer, and so to understand
them we have to ask people how they think. Ji (2000) used interview-type methods to
collect her data; Gutchess (2009) interviewed her participants (describing scenes, she
found Asian ppts described the background more than the Americans, who focused on the
object of the pictures).
Line of argument: cognitive processes are not directly observable or accessible and so
cognitive psychologists need a way of finding out how people are processing information.
Theories predict behaviours that can then be tested, and people can describe the processes
they’re aware of, meaning that by using these methods cognitive processing can be better
understood.
Page | 5
C4: Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the cognitive level of analysis
Ethical considerations related to research @ CLOA
Generic or specific
- Informed consent
- Deception
- Right to withdraw
- Protection from harm
o Physical
o Psychological
- Debrief
- Privacy – what you let the researchers know about (a right)
- Confidentiality – what researchers must keep secret/anonymous (a responsibility)
Remember that ethical considerations aren’t necessarily problems, but issues that need to be
thought about in relation to any research that is conducted.
Possible studies with relevant consideration:
- Gutchess (2006), Brody/Kennedy – privacy re: discovering problems  psychological
harm?
- HM – confidentiality: we only learned his name (Henri Mollaison) when he died.
Line of argument – all aspects of research involve considering how participants are to be
treated. Once these issues have been satisfactorily dealt with the study has the potential
to be useful. If there are any ethical problems then the integrity of the research is
compromised and its value diminished.
Page | 6
C5: Evaluate schema theory with reference to research studies
‘Evaluate’ requires that you include strengths, limitations and a judgement of the theory.
Define schemas/schema theory
Bartlett (1932)
Carmichael (1932)
Anderson & Pichert (1978)
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Line of argument – schema theory seems to predict and explain our interactions with the
world very well: very few studies suggest that it’s wrong. However, the theory cannot give
a mechanism by which schemas guide our behaviour, or even how we acquire them, and
thus it lacks weight.
Page | 7
C6: Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process (for example, memory,
perception, language, decision-making) with reference to research studies
‘Evaluate’ requires that you include strengths, limitations and a judgement of the
model/theory.
Multi-store model of memory (MSM)
- Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)
- Glanzer & Cunitz (1967)
- Raugh & Atkinson (1975)
Evaluation: explains some phenomena but struggles against elaborative rehearsal (LoPT)
and FBMs. HM had discrete memory stores, supporting to a degree, but it’s too simplistic
to be satisfactory.
Levels of Processing Theory (LoPT)
- Craik & Lockhart (1972)
- Mandler (1967)
- Craik & Tulving (1975)
- Diemand-Yauman (2011)
Evaluation: accounts for implicit learning well, but is poorly defined, doesn’t explain very
clearly and struggles with FBMs.
Line of argument – both the MSM and LoPT have research evidence that support them and
weaknesses that the other can account for more successfully. Memory seems to be far
more complex than either model/theory can deal with on its own, but even combined
there are enough gaps that mean a more expansive and coherent model should be sought.
Page | 8
C7: Explain how biological factors may affect one cognitive process
‘Explain’ for just eight marks. 
Gais & Born (2004) – ACh and cortisol: how different levels affect encoding and
consolidation of memory.
Page | 9
C8: Discuss how social or cultural factors affect one cognitive process
‘Discuss’ means balanced/considered.
Memory is shaped by our culture.
[Gutchess (2006/9) – be careful to link her discoveries re: perception to cultural influences
on memory; this isn’t difficult but must be done.]
Han (1998) – asked 4-6 year-olds about everyday events and their last birthday: Chinese
talked about many details, US about few; US children made three times as many selfreferences.
Mullen (1994) – US children have earlier autobiographical memories than Chinese because
of their upbringing.
Ji (2000) – Chinese students remembered more of their publicly-observable behaviours
than US, because Chinese needed to note others’ behaviours so that they could fit in rather
than standing out and getting hammered down.
Line of argument: we remember those things that we pay attention to (Cherry?!), and we
pay attention to those things that our culture ‘trains’ us to attend to. If our attention is on
context as much as object then we will remember the world differently from those who
focus much more on the object. Culture affects memory.
Page | 10
C9: With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent is one cognitive process
reliable?
‘To what extent’ requires that you demonstrate the degree to which a cognitive process is
reliable and highlight some of the problems that limit its reliability.
[Loftus and Palmer (1974)]
Bartlett (1932)
Rattner (1983) – 8500 convictions based on flawed EWT..!
Anderson & Pichert (1978)
Baddeley & Godden (1975)
Geiselman & Fisher (1985) – cognitive interview
Fisher et al (1990) – enhanced cognitive interview in real setting
Line of argument: Too many people are convicted each year on the basis of EWT because
people believe that memories are accurate. Research has clearly shown that memory is too
reconstructive by nature and therefore too prone to distortion to trust when people’s lives
are at stake. EWT can be made more reliable using the evidenced-based cognitive
interview, but while memory helps us get through life we shouldn’t use it as the sole basis
to take the life of another.
Page | 11
C10: Discuss the use of technology in investigating cognitive processes
Balanced/considered…
You must remember that this question is asking why psychologists use technology to answer the
questions they have about cognitive processes. Focus on why brain imaging technologies are
used more than when they have been used.
Examples that might help: [Broca – historical example of what we used to do]
Fink (PET)
Gutchess (fMRI)
Maguire (MRI)
Sharot (fMRI)
Brody/Kennedy…
Try to mention studies that use different technologies.
Line of argument: brain imaging technologies allow us to investigate aspects of behaviour
hitherto unavailable to us (i.e. that we couldn’t previously access!), particularly on living
people. We can understand how cognition, the brain and behaviour are linked in new and
helpful ways.
Page | 12
C11: To what extent do cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion?
Do they interact? How much?
Schachter & Singer (1962) – two-factor theory of emotion (TFT)
Dutton & Aron (1974) – love on a bridge!
LeDoux (1999) – biological explanation of TFT
Folkman (1985) – cognitive appraisal theory
Line of argument: Emotions are the combination of a physiological reaction and the label
that we give it. The cognitive aspect to emotion is an intrinsic part of the emotional
response that we have to stimuli: the interaction is absolute and inseparable; if there is no
physiological response then there is nothing to interpret as an emotion, and if there’s no
cognitive processing there is no discernible point to the reaction.
Page | 13
C12: Evaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process
‘Evaluate’ means that a judgement must be formed by the end of your response.
FBMs
- Brown & Kulik (1977): proposed FBMs as being qualitatively different from other
memories and as using a different biological pathway when being encoded.
- Stetson (2007): concluded that the amygdala is involved in processing memories of
emotionally-charged experiences.
- Sharot (2006): different pattern of brain activity (including the amygdala) for those
remembering 9/11 IFF participants were within two miles of the Twin Towers; suggests
a different mechanism but only for very particular circumstances.
- Neisser & Harsch (1992): found that participants’ memories of the Challenger disaster
were no more reliable than other autobiographical memories, despite greater
confidence and vividness associated with the memories.
Line of argument: emotional experiences involve the amygdala in the encoding process,
allowing for more information to be processed and thus more detail to be recalled.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that FBMs are any more accurate than other
autobiographical memories and so while emotions add to the detail they do nothing for
the accuracy of memory.
Page | 14
IB Command terms
Command terms associated with assessment objective 1: Knowledge and comprehension
Define
Give the precise meaning of a word, phrase, concept or physical quantity.
Describe
Give a detailed account.
Outline
Give a brief account or summary.
State
Give a specific name, value or other brief answer without explanation or calculation.
Command terms associated with assessment objective 2: Application and analysis
Analyse
Break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure.
Apply
Use an idea, equation, principle, theory or law in relation to a given problem or issue.
Distinguish
Make clear the differences between two or more concepts or items.
Explain
Give a detailed account including reasons or causes.
Command terms associated with assessment objective 3: Synthesis and evaluation
Compare
Give an account of the similarities between two (or more) items or situations, referring
to both (all) of them throughout.
Compare and contrast
Give an account of similarities and differences between two (or more) items or
situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Contrast
Give an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations referring
to both (all) of them throughout.
Discuss
Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by
appropriate evidence.
Evaluate
Make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.
Examine
Consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and
interrelationships of the issue.
To what extent
Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions
should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound
argument.
Page | 15
Page | 16