| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 9 | Reference code | 20N.Paper 3.HL.TZ0.3 |
| Level | HL only | Paper | Paper 3 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Discuss | Question number | 3 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
The stimulus material below is based on a study on the effect of social exclusion on prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that is performed to benefit others, rather than oneself.
A person’s feeling of not being part of a social group may affect that person’s behaviour. The hypothesis of this study was that perception of social exclusion would decrease prosocial behaviour.
The convenience sample consisted of psychology university students (N = 26) who signed up for the study to gain course credit. There was an equal number of males and females from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
The participants signed consent forms, but the researchers did not inform participants about the true purpose of the study until afterwards. No participant was named in the research report.
Individually, participants completed a personality test and were paid two dollars, after which they received a randomly assigned personality type description. These allocated them to either condition 1 (social exclusion) or condition 2 (social inclusion). Participants in condition 1 received negative feedback on the personality test such as “You are the type that might end up alone later in life”. Participants in condition 2 received positive feedback such as “You are the type that might have many friends throughout life”.
The researcher then left the room for two minutes, but before leaving she pointed to a box with a sign reading “Student Emergency Fund” and said to the participant that they could donate a small amount of the two dollars if they wanted but it was up to them. After two minutes the researcher returned and debriefed each participant.
The measure of prosocial behaviour in this study was defined as whether the participants gave a donation or not. Only five participants in condition 1 donated, compared to all participants in condition 2.
The researchers concluded that the perception of future social exclusion resulted in temporarily negative emotions that prevented some participants in condition 1 from acting in a prosocial manner.
Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study.
Markscheme
Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
Marks should be awarded according to the descriptors in the markbands. Each level of the markband corresponds to a range of marks to differentiate candidates' performance. A best-fit approach is used to ascertain which particular mark to use from the possible range for each level descriptor.
The study in the stimulus material is a quantitative study so it is expected that candidates use terminology related to generalization in quantitative research. Use of concepts related to qualitative research such as “theoretical generalisation” and “inferential generalisation” should not be awarded credit.
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a review of the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material.
Discussion related to the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material could include but are not limited to:
- Generalization means drawing inferences from findings in this experiment to something outside the study (external validity). The study in the stimulus is quantitative and therefore a model of generalization could be statistical generalization (also accept: nomothetic generalization). Although the participants in this study are randomly allocated to the two conditions, the sample is not randomized (as it was a convenience sample). Therefore, generalization would be problematic.
- In this study, the target population is psychology students who as part of their education are expected to sign up for a certain number of research studies. The study used convenience sampling, which is a non-probability sample, but it is also an easy and quick way to select a sample. However, this sampling method has received a lot of criticism, as psychology students at universities cannot be expected to represent a wider population. Therefore, it can be argued that it might at best be possible to generalize these results to psychology students at universities. Some would argue that a convenience sample only represents itself.
- The sampling method (based on convenience) is not considered statistically representative of a target population as it suffers from self-selection bias. One way to ensure generalization in a study is to choose a random sample (probability sampling).
- The fact that students received credit for participation could result in selection bias. When there is requirement to participate, students may be more likely to sign up for one study and not another on the basis of a convenient appointment time, rather than because they are making an informed choice about the kind of study they want to participate in.
- The sample was relatively small with only 26 participants. However, the researchers had ensured that the sample included both males and females as well as different ethnic groups. If the researchers added more participants to the sample it would enhance the possibility of generalization, as well as adding to statistical power. The more participants, the greater the chance that differences between participants will be levelled out and therefore generalization is more likely to be possible.
- If replications of this study arrived at the same conclusion, the potential for generalization is enhanced. If the same theory of cause-effect relationship between social exclusion and decrease in prosocial behaviour found support in additional studies it would be more likely to confirm the validity of the original findings.
Examiners report
Question 3 was the question that appeared most difficult for candidates.
Most candidates identified the features in the stimulus material that could be linked to generalization such as the sampling method, sample bias, but there was limited agreement as to whether the result could be generalized or not. Few candidates achieved the top mark band in their responses, and while there were some responses that described accurately the process of generalizing from quantitative research and a convenience sample, they failed to discuss the possibility.
Stronger answers referred to factors such as generalization from sample to population, selection bias, construct validity, internal/external validity, mundane realism, and the possibility of replicating the study and were able to provide some discussion linked to the question asked.
Weaker answers did not often go beyond an explanation of why the sample may or may not be generalizable making reference to the sample itself, for example, arguing that the sample did not represent 'every person in the whole world' or that the sample could be generalized to 'all cultures, all females and males'. Such statements indicate a limited understanding of generalization. Weaker answers often used qualitative concepts and reasoning even though they had identified the research method as quantitative. It seemed that some of these answers relied on pre-learned knowledge but failed to realize that the study was quantitative.
