InThinking Revision Sites

INTHINKING REVISION SITES

Own your learning

Why not also try our independent learning self-study & revision websites for students?

We currenly offer the following DP Sites: Biology, Chemistry, English A Lang & Lit, Maths A&A, Maths A&I, Physics, Spanish B

"The site is great for revising the basic understandings of each topic quickly. Especially since you are able to test yourself at the end of each page and easily see where yo need to improve."

"It is life saving... I am passing IB because of this site!"

Basic (limited access) subscriptions are FREE. Check them out at:

www.StudyIB.net

ERQ sample: Cognitive methods

  • /
  • Student resources/
  • Cognitive approach/
  • Writing samples: Cognitive/
  • ERQ sample: Cognitive methods

The following essay sample is a response to the question: Contrast two research methods used in the study of cognitive processes. The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks.

Comments about the essay are included below.

What is the question asking for?

  • Two research methods should be clearly explained.
  •  One study for each research method should be described. The studies must be clearly linked to the cognitive approach.
  • There should be a clear explanation of the differences between the two research methods.

    Sample response

    The cognitive approach studies how we process information.  One cognitive process that is studied in this approach is memory. The cognitive approach uses different research methods because each one has its own strengths and limitations. This essay will look at the different strengths and limitations of experiments and questionnaires in the study of memory.

    Experiments are often used because they have several key strengths.  First, because an independent variable is manipulated and its effect on a dependent variable is measured while other variables are controlled, a cause and effect relationship can be determined.  In addition, because they are highly standardized, they may be replicated. This allows other psychologists to “redo” the experiment to attempt to get the same results.  This means the reliability of the results can be tested. The data in an experiment is usually quantitative and can be statistically analysed for significance.  Finally, participants are randomly allocated to groups to avoid characteristics of the individuals influencing the results.

    One experiment was done by Loftus & Palmer (1974). They wanted to test if a person’s memory could be influenced by a leading question. Participants watched a video of a car crash and then were given a questionnaire. One of the questions was different “how fast was the car going when it x’d the other car?”  Some participants had the word “smashed” others had words like “hit” or “bumped.” The researchers found that the participants who had a verb with a higher intensity (smashed), remembered a higher speed of impact than those that had the word “bumped.”

    Experiments have limitations.  This situation is rather artificial – when we see an accident, there is powerful emotion which is not true when watching a video in a classroom.  This means that the study lacks ecological validity.

    Another research method is questionnaires.  Brown and Kulik used questionnaires to study flashbulb memory – that is, vivid memories that are the result of strong emotional and personal experiences. Questionnaires are standardized in that all participants get the same list of questions.  Questionnaires, unlike experiments, get mainly qualitative data and analysis looks for trends in the data, but not statistical significance. And unlike experiments, they are naturalistic.  The situation is not artificial and so the studies have higher ecological validity.  Unlike experiments, there are no controls of other variables that may influence the results of the study.

    In their study, they asked 40 black and 40 white American male participants to fill out a questionnaire regarding the death of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King -  as well as of someone they personally knew. They were asked a series of questions about where they were when they heard about it, who they were with, what they were doing and how they found out.  They found that 90% recalled a significant amount of detail about the death of a loved one; however, social identity played a role in the flashbulb memories of the assassinations. 75% of black participants had FBMs of the death of MLK, whereas only 25% of white participants did.  The researchers concluded that personal relevance plays a key role in the creation of FBMs.

    One limitation of the study is that there was no way to verify the accuracy of the participants’ memories.  In addition, when it came to the death of JFK or a loved one, it is possible that social desirability effect played a role – that is, they may have said that they had memories of the president’s death because they did not want to appear “unpatriotic.”

    Unlike experiments, questionnaires cannot be used to establish a cause and effect relationship.  Although they can be given to other participants to see if there is a similar result, because the data is often not quantitative and able to be statistically analysed, it is not always possible to establish the reliability of the findings.  Questionnaires on flashbulb memory also rely on retrospective data, which means it is difficult to establish the validity and reliability of the data.

    Finally, a key difference between questionnaires and experiments is that in questionnaires participants are not randomly allocated to conditions.  Questionnaires often use purposive samples; in other words, the participants are chosen because of a certain trait that the researchers want to study.  This is also true in quasi-experiments which, like questionnaires, cannot then establish a cause and effect relationship.

    Questionnaires are less artificial and allow the participant more “voice” than an experiment and produce richer data for analysis.  Experiments isolate variables to study cause and effect relationships.  Together these methods give us a richer understanding of cognitive processes.

    765 words

    Marking the response

    Focus on the question

    The response is focused on the question.  The introduction clearly identifies the two research methods that will be used and there is some indication of the differences that will be discussed.

    Knowledge and understanding

    The response demonstrates a clear understanding of the two research methods.  Psychological terminology is used effectively and key terms are unpacked to demonstrate knowledge and understanding. 

    Use of research

    The studies are clear examples of the research methods described. The studies are clearly described in terms of the research methods.

    Critical thinking

    The contrast command term requires a different form of critical thinking than an "evaluate" or "discuss" question. The focus of the critical thinking should be on discussing the differences between the two research methods.  Evaluation of research studies is not necessarily helpful in making an argument and therefore would have been inappropriate in this response. Any evaluation of the studies is directly linked to the research method used.

    Clarity and organization

    The response is well organized and the language of the response communicates ideas effectively.

    What are common problems with this question?

    • Two distinct research methods are not contrasted  - for example, "true" experiments and quasi-experiments.  These are both experiments and not two distinct research methods.
    • The focus is not on the cognitive approach.  Students must be careful not to use biological research in lieu of cognitive research.
    • The studies are evaluated, but not with regard to the method that was used.
    • Research methods are simply evaluated, leaving the "contrast" up to the reader.  Contrasting of the methods is only implicit.
    • The focus is on evaluating studies, rather than explaining the differences between two research methods.