Describe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.

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

The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.

Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:

• the aim of the study is linked to a cognitive bias
• a description of the research method used
• description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.
• use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)
• description of the use of triangulation in a case study
• identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required
• controls used by the researcher
• materials used in the study
• the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Anchoring bias: Englisch and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)
• Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) – participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.
• Confirmation bias: Wason (1960), Chapman (1969), Stone(1997), Darley and Gross(1983).
• Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
• Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
• Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Swann (1978)
• Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) – participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.
• Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973).

If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].

If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description. 

HL:

A wide range of cognitive biases were addressed for this question; the most commonly encountered however were anchoring bias, availability heuristic and framing effect bias. Stronger responses to this question were those that correctly identified a cognitive bias, briefly outlined what the bias entailed and then provided a clear, accurate and detailed description of a relevant study that investigated the specific bias. Such responses were fully focused on the demands of the question and could show explicitly how the findings of the study illustrated the bias. Importantly, the stronger responses provided sufficient detail of the procedure of the selected study.

Most responses to this question fell into the mid-band range of marks as candidates had unfocused responses with a good deal of unnecessary information referring to the Dual Process Model and system 1 thinking at the outset of the exam answer at the expense of the study description. Therefore, this meant that much of the response was redundant and the study description played a secondary role. Weaker responses identified an inappropriate cognitive bias such as in-group bias or referred to stereotypes (e.g. social or gender) as an example of a bias. Some candidates could accurately identify a bias but provided a study related generally to thinking and decision-making but not directly investigating a bias.

SL:

This question asked candidates to describe a study. Some candidates instead wrote long responses about system 1 and 2 thinking, heuristics and cognitive bias, with very little detail on the study. In contrast, some responses were able to correctly identify the aim, procedure, and findings of a study, then use the conclusion to demonstrate conceptual understanding of the cognitive bias. However, many candidates did not describe the procedures in adequate detail or make use of terminology linked to research methodology e.g. the design, independent/dependent variables or controls.

By far the most popular cognitive bias was anchoring bias, with Tversky and Kahneman (1974), Strack and Mussweiler (1997), and Englisch and Mussweiler (2001) being used most prolifically, but varying in detail. Most responses fell into the middle markband based on the detail of descriptions of the procedures of the relevant study.

Some candidates confused their biases, instead explaining another in its place. Common examples included framing effect, illusory correlation, confirmation bias and the peak-end rule. There was also some confusion with regards to stereotypes, cultural and gender biases as examples of cognitive biases.