Evaluate one or more studies investigating reconstructive memory.

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 “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies investigating reconstructive memory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:

• Loftus and Pickrell’s (2002) study in creation of false memories
• Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study of eyewitness testimony
• Cann et al.’s (2011) study of false recall in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm
• Bartlett’s (1932) “War of Ghosts” study of schema processing.
• Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study of the effect of leading questions on eye-witnesses to a real crime.

Critical evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

• why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s) including strengths and limitations of the study/studies
• possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method(s) in the study/studies
• the issues of validity and reliability
• the generalizability of findings
• contradictory findings
• ethical considerations
• implications and practical applications of the findings.

HL:

This question was answered relatively well and most candidates provided relevant examples of empirical studies. The strongest responses included more than one example of research so were well developed in terms of the details of the research selected and evaluation required for top band responses. The evaluation points were well justified, used terminology accurately and went beyond methodological evaluation to examine practical applications and provide examples of contradictory findings.

The weaker responses to this question were those that provided examples of research relevant to schema theory or flashbulb memory but not reconstructive memory such as Bransford and Johnson (1972) or Brown and Kulik (1977) respectively. There were several examples of essays focused on biological factors influencing memory and referring to the case study of HM or the role of hormones or neurotransmitters in memory formation and as such failed to attract any marks. Evaluation of research in the lower scoring responses was often generic, repetitive and lacked explanation.

SL:

This was the most popular question in section B and in general, candidates answered this well, albeit a little formulaically. There was a good variety of research used with most candidates presenting Loftus and Palmer (1974) study on the reliability of eye witness testimony or Bartlett's (1932) 'War of the Ghosts' study although these were not always described in-depth or accurately. In particular, candidates often failed to link Loftus to reconstructive memory effectively, not mentioning the follow-up study with the broken glass. Candidates also used Brewer and Treyen's (1981) office schema and Loftus and Pickrell's (1995) 'Lost in a mall study' effectively. 

Generic, repetitive critical thinking was once again evident; many responses merely provided some simple evaluation statements of the research studies including ethics. The best candidates however, were able to evaluate the studies by looking at issues of validity and reliability, present contradictory or real life findings through work such as Yuille and Cutshall (1986), and look at the application of the research findings

Some candidates offered studies on flashbulb memory, which unfortunately were often unable to attract credit as they were not focused on reconstructive memory.