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 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: Englich 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: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).
• Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
• Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
• Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Schwann (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:

Although many candidates demonstrated good knowledge of the Dual Process Model and the nature of cognitive biases in thinking and decision-making, a significant number of candidates did not focus their response on the description of a study. Strong responses had a clearly stated aim, good detail about the procedure, and a conceptual understanding of the findings. In addition, they were able to make the link to the identified cognitive bias.

Some responses were not focused on thinking and decision-making, but instead described schema theory and memory distortion.

Two studies proved problematic for candidates — Wason (1968) and Stroop (1935). In both cases, the test was described, but not the actual experiment. In addition, candidates struggled to link them to a relevant cognitive bias.

SL:

A large proportion of candidates scoring in the top-mark band discussed the role of Dual Process Theory and/or heuristics and gave a description of Kahneman's research into the two systems of thinking. A significant proportion of responses attempted to descritask studies with limited degrees of success. Candidates who used confirmation bias and gave Wason's selection task as a research study did not score highly due to the fact that Wason did not give a name to the bias that resulted in his findings. Lots of responses described schema theory as a cognitive bias.

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