Evaluate one or more studies on the influence of emotion on cognitive processes.

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 the candidate to make an appraisal of one or more research studies of the influence of emotion on cognitive processes by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study or studies, not on a general evaluation of theories of emotion and cognition. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, this does not have to be evenly balanced.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Brown and Kulik (1977), Neisser and Harsch (1992), Sharot et al. (2007), Sharot, Delgado and Phelps (2004), Er (2003), McGaugh and Cahill’s (1995) studies on flashbulb memory
• LeDoux (1996) brain pathways for processing fear stimuli
• Talariko and Rubin’s (2003) study that demonstrates increased confidence in memory correlated to emotional intensity
• Brasel et al. (2006) the effects of emotion and perception
• Phelps et al. (2006) the effects of emotion and attention
• Bechara et al. (2000) the somatic marker hypothesis, decision making, gambling and the vmPFC.

Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:

• ecological versus internal validity
• the measurement of cultural influences
• contradictory evidence or alternative explanations
• sampling biases (e.g. gender, culture, age)
• potential participant and researcher biases
• ethical considerations.

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. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

There were many strong responses to this question, with the vast majority of candidates using Flashbulb Memory when describing the influence of emotion on cognitive processes. There were many in-depth evaluations from candidates, whereas weaker responses were lacking in developed strengths and weaknesses.

There was a good variety of research used in this response. Most candidates used Brown & Kulik, Sharot et al., Neisser & Harsch or McGaugh & Cahill's studies on flashbulb memory. These were often described in detail, again the focus here was not always on the evaluation of the research and candidates lost marks because of this.

The lack of well-described critical thinking was once again evident. Many responses merely provided some simple evaluation statements of the research studies, did not use terminology effectively or made evaluative comments with no clear explanation or link to the specific study that was being explained.