Evaluate one or more research methods used when investigating the relationship between the brain and behaviour.

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 research methods used when investigating the relationship between the brain and behaviour. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Behaviour may include cognitive processes.

Research methods used when investigating the brain and behaviour include, but are not limited to:

• true experiments (Crockett et al., 2015; Draganski et al., 2003; Antonova, 2011)
• quasi experiments (Maguire, 2000; Sharot, 2007)
• case studies (HM, Milner, 1966; Tierney et al., 2001).

As part of their response, candidates may address results of studies that use technologies (e.g. MRI, fMRI, PET); however, the focus of the evaluation must be on the chosen research method(s).

Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

• the ability to determine causality
• the ability to replicate the research and establish reliability
• ecological validity
• ethical considerations in the use of deception
• holistic vs reductionist approaches to the study of behaviour
• internal validity – the ability to control for extraneous variables through double-blind techniques, random allocation, placebo groups
• potential generalizability of findings.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. 

HL:

There were several strong responses to this question – primarily focused on the use of experiments and/or case studies in the study of the brain and behaviour. Weaker responses were not focused on a research method, but instead discussed the use of twin studies, animal research, or brain imaging technology.

Some candidates struggled with the command term and did not address any of the strengths of the research methods, focusing solely on limitations. Weaker candidates evaluated the research with limited evaluation of the actual research method.

Many candidates struggled with the use of appropriate terminology. Many used the terms “lab experiment” and “true experiment” interchangeably. This resulted in many making the false claim that all lab experiments establish a cause-and-effect relationship, although many quasi-experiments – including Maguire’s (2000) taxi study – clearly do not.

In addition, there was often an oversimplified understanding of validity and reliability. Some candidates assumed that all studies done in a lab have high internal validity and low ecological validity. There was limited understanding of the complexity of these two concepts. Terms such as “control,” “accuracy,” and “generalizability” were often misapplied.

SL:

There were many strong responses to this question and candidates demonstrated an impressive breadth and depth of learning. Relevant psychological research methods were described in detail and once again there was an impressive variety of empirical evidence demonstrated. Many responses used psychological experiments by Crockett et al., Draganski et al., Antonova et al., as well as more familiar research such as Maguire's quasi-experiment and Milner's Case Study of HM.

A considerable number of candidates used brain imaging techniques as a stand-alone research method and these responses did not score highly due to the fact that these do not qualify as a separate research method.

Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.