Describe one ethical consideration related to one relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding 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 ethical consideration related to one relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour.

The ethical consideration described can be one that was adhered to in the study (what guidelines were or could be followed) or one that was breached (what guidelines were not followed).

Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:

• protection of participants
• issues of consent/assent
• debriefing
• right to withdraw from a study
• use of deception
• informed consent
• confidentiality
• anonymity.

Studies related to the cognitive approach may include, but are not limited to:

• Brewer and Treyens’ (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on memory
• Schacter and Singer’s (1962) use of deception in the study of the two-factor theory of emotion
• Corkin et al. (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM’s brain lesion in relation to memory
• Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) use of deception in the study of reconstructive memory
• Sharot et al. (2007) and protection from harm in the study of how emotion may affect memory.

If a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration credit should be given only to the first description.

If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.

If a candidate describes one ethical consideration without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.

If a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing one ethical consideration, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

SL:

This question asked for a description of an ethical consideration. Most candidates were able to identify one consideration, with protection from harm, informed consent and deception being the most commonly selected. The studies most commonly selected were Brewer and Treyens' (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on memory, Corkin et al. (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM's brain lesion in relation to memory, and Loftus and Palmer's (1974) use of deception in the study of reconstructive memory.

Stronger answers included identifying one relevant ethical consideration, defining it, describing how and why it was addressed in research and its importance to the quality of psychological research overall including the link to other ethical considerations, for example deception and the subsequent lack of fully informed consent which necessitated thorough debriefing. High-scoring students tended to describe a relevant study from the cognitive approach and focus on the link to the ethical issue throughout the description.

Weaker answers merely identified the ethical consideration or may have given an overview of all ethical considerations without identifying one as the focus of the response. Several included research that was not relevant to the cognitive approach to behaviour, such as Zimbardo's prison study, Milgram's obedience study or Bandura's observational learning study which could not be credited. Likewise, a surprising number of responses addressed ethical considerations in animal research studies which resulted in low marks.

Overall the majority of answers fell in the midband — candidates seemed to understand ethical considerations in general and in most cases could select a relevant study, even if the description and link to the ethical consideration lacked depth.

HL: 

A range of ethical considerations were addressed for this question. The most commonly encountered were informed consent, deception and prevention of undue stress or harm. The studies most commonly selected were Brewer and Treyens' (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on recall, Corkin et al. (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM's brain lesion in relation to memory, .

Stronger responses to this question were those that correctly identified and described an ethical consideration in some detail and then linked it explicitly to a relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour. Such responses were fully focused on the demands of the question and could show explicitly and in good detail how the study illustrated the ethical consideration.

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 several ethical considerations at the outset of the answer. Therefore, this meant that much of the response was redundant and the ensuing description of the targeted ethical consideration was underdeveloped. Not all studies were relevant to the cognitive approach and several candidates included a classic, ethically controversial piece of research such as Zimbardo's prison study, Milgram's obedience study or Bandura's observational learning study which could not be credited. Likewise, a surprising number of responses addressed ethical considerations in animal research studies which resulted in low marks.