Discuss one or more biases in thinking and/or decision-making.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.

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

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

Examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:

• specific biases (eg confirmation, optimism, selective attention)
• illusory correlation
• effects of framing
• heuristics (eg anchoring, availability, representativeness)

Examples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Chapman and Chapman (1969); Stone et al. (1997) on confirmation bias
• Englisch and Mussweiler (2001); Strack and Mussweiler (1997) on anchoring bias
• Hamilton and Gifford (1976); Snyder and Swann (1978); Song and Schwarz (2007) on illusory correlation
• Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects
• Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991); Verhulst et al (2010); Palmer and Peterson (2012) on halo effect

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:

• Applications of findings – for example, in marketing or in understanding health-related behaviour
• Cultural and gender differences in cognitive biases
• Difficulties in studying cognitive processes – eg isolation of variables and measuring cognition; artificial nature of experimental research
• Explanations of why cognitive biases occur – eg linking to Dual Process Theory

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

HL - Candidates demonstrated good understanding of cognitive biases and relevant research. Many candidates, however, only defined the biases and did not actually explain why we use them.

Many candidates struggled to write a coherent summary of Wason’s studies – and they often confused matching bias, correspondence bias and conformity bias. Many candidates also struggled to explain how cognitive dissonance could be considered a bias.

SL - Many responses demonstrated a good understanding of cognitive biases and provided appropriate and relevant supporting empirical research, showing a sound grasp of these psychological concepts. There were good explanations of Dual System Theory and Tversky and Kahneman’s supporting research was described well. Some candidates confused their biases, explaining another in its place – common examples included: framing effect, anchoring bias, illusory correlation, confirmation bias and the peakend rule. Many responses attempted to describe Wason’s Task Studies with limited degrees of success.

There was some confusion with regard to stereotypes as an example of cognitive bias. There were also numerous responses addressing social bias, such as attribution, rather than cognitive bias. A number of responses also discussed cultural and gender biases.

Finally, there was little attempt to evaluate the research and theory of decision making/cognitive biases outside of generic statements about procedure, generalizability and ecological validity.