Chapter 3: Assessment in IB Psychology

Chapter Outline

1. How will I be assessed?

2. How will my writing be assessed in IB Psychology?

3. What do I write about?

4. How can I score top marks when I write in response to SAQs?

5. How can I score top marks when I write in response to ERQs?

Essential Questions

• How will I be assessed in IB Psychology?

• How can I improve my writing?

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

• Distinguish between SAQs and ERQs

• Identify the requirements of Paper 3 (HL students only)

• Understand how your writing will be assessed

• Identify the requirements of each of the command terms

• Develop strategies to improve your writing

Myths and Misconceptions

Some people are born writers.

Writing is a skill you can develop. To write well, you need lots of practice writing IB style essays. You need patience too as it takes many months to write like a psychologist. To improve your writing, you must be committed to the process. You also need to be committed to improving your writing.

Google searches can help me answer IB Psychology questions.

Google searches can provide you with information about a topic but do not copy and paste content directly into your essays. Take notes and think about the material. You must write in your own words. Pamoja uses Turnitin.com to detect any similarities between your writing and internet sources.

The more I write, the better my marks.

Not so. You should write around 250 words for an SAQ and 800 words for ERQ, but writing everything you know about a topic without answering the question will not result in a high score. “Focus” is an important criterion in evaluating your writing.

I can use research studies to prove my point.

Not so. Psychology is a new science and answers to research questions are tentative and often contentious (contentious = likely to cause disagreement between people). Instead of “prove” use “show” or “demonstrate”.

1. How will I be assessed?

There are two types of assessment in IB Psychology: formative that provides feedback on how you are learning and summative that provides feedback on how much you have learnt.

Formative work needs to be submitted by the due date and it is marked 'Complete' or 'Incomplete' by your teacher.

Examples of Formative Assignments:

• Write a description of a psychological study.

• Write an outline for an essay topic.

• Make graphic organisers showing memory models.

• Contribute to a group project.

Summative work also needs to be submitted by the due date. Your answers to Short Answer Questions (SAQs) are marked out of 9, and your answers to Extended Response Questions (ERQs) are marked out of 22.

Examples of Summative Assignments

• SAQ: Explain how one hormone influences one human behaviour.

• ERQ: Discuss social learning theory.

• ERQ: Evaluate two treatments for one or more disorders.

Your IB grade is based on internal and external assessments. The internal assessment (IA) is a 2200-word report on an experiment undertaken in year 2. This report is graded by your teacher and then moderated by IB. External assessments are IB examinations held at your school.

The IB Psychology Guide provides you with a set of assessment objectives and syllabus outlines for both Standard and Higher Level Courses.

Standard Level IB Psychology
Assessment Component	Weighting
External assessment (3 hours)	75%
Paper 1 (2 hours) Section A: Three short-answer questions on the core approaches to psychology (27 marks) Section B: One essay from a choice of three on the biological, cognitive and sociocultural approaches to behaviour (22 marks) (Total 49 marks)	50%
Paper 2 (1 hour) One question from a choice of three on one option (22 marks)	25%
Internal assessment (20 hours) This component is internally assessed by the teacher and externally moderated by the IB at the end of the course.
Experimental study A report on an experimental study undertaken by the student (22 marks)	25%

Table 3.1 SL Assessment Components

Higher Level Assessment Components
Assessment Component	Weighting
External assessment (5 hours)	80%
Paper 1 (2 hours) Section A: Three short-answer questions on the core approaches to psychology (27 marks) Section B: One essay from a choice of three on the biological, cognitive and sociocultural approaches to behaviour. One, two or all of the essays will reference the additional HL topic (22 marks) (Total 49 marks)	40%
Paper 2 (2 hours) Two questions; one from a choice of three on each of two options (Total 44 marks)	20%
Paper 3 (1 hour) Three short-answer questions from a list of six static questions on approaches to research (24 marks)	20%
Internal assessment (20 hours) This component is internally assessed by the teacher and externally moderated by the IB at the end of the course.
Experimental study A report on an experimental study undertaken by the student (22 marks)	20%

Table 3.2 HL Assessment Components

2. How will my writing be assessed?

A set of criteria is used by your teacher to grade your summative assignments. How well you have met these assessment criteria is judged by using markbands. For example, if your response to an SAQ is focused on the question, with accurate and relevant knowledge of concepts and research studies you will be awarded between 7 and 9 marks.

Markband	Level Descriptor
0	The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-3	The response is of limited relevance to or only rephrases the question. Knowledge and understanding is mostly inaccurate or not relevant to the question. The research supporting the response is mostly not relevant to the question and if relevant only listed.
4-6	The response is relevant to the question, but does not meet the command term requirements. Knowledge and understanding is accurate but limited. The response is supported by appropriate research which is described.
7-9	The response is fully focused on the question and meets the command term requirements. Knowledge and understanding is accurate and addresses the main topics/problems identified in the question. The response is supported by appropriate research which is described and explicitly linked to the question.

Table 3.3 SAQ Level Descriptors

The assessment criteria for the ERQ is more extensive as you will be writing an essay. The top mark you can earn is 22. To do that you need to:

• Focus on the question

• Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding

• Use relevant research studies to support your answer

• Show critical thinking

• Show effective organisation and expression

Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)

Mark	Level Descriptor
0	Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1	Identifies the problem/issue raised in the question.
2	Explains the problem/issue raised in the question.

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks)

Mark	Level Descriptor
0	Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2	The response demonstrates limited relevant knowledge and understanding. Psychological terminology is used but with errors that hamper understanding.
3-4	The response demonstrates relevant knowledge and understanding but lacks detail. Psychological terminology is used but with errors that do not hamper understanding.
5-6	The response demonstrates relevant, detailed knowledge and understanding. Psychological terminology is used appropriately.

Criterion C: Use of research to support answer (6 marks)

Mark	Level Descriptor
0	Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2	Limited relevant psychological research is used in the response. Research selected serves to repeat points already made.
3-4	Relevant psychological research is used in support of the response and is partly explained. Research selected partially develops the argument.
5-6	Relevant psychological research is used in support of the response and is thoroughly explained. Research selected is effectively used to develop the argument.

Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)

Mark	Level Descriptor
0	Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2	There is limited critical thinking and the response is mainly descriptive. Evaluation or discussion, if present, is superficial.
3-4	The response contains critical thinking but lacks development. Evaluation or discussion of most relevant areas is attempted but is not developed.
5-6	The response consistently demonstrates well-developed critical thinking. Evaluation or discussion of relevant areas is consistently well-developed.

Criterion E: Clarity and organisation (2 marks)

Mark	Level Descriptor
0	Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1	The answer demonstrates some organization and clarity, but this is not sustained throughout the response.
2	The answer demonstrates organization and clarity throughout the response.

Table 3.4 ERQ Level Descriptors

Time to reflect

Reflect on how you have been assessed in the past. Are the requirements of good writing in IB Psychology similar or different to other subjects you have studied?

3. What do I write about?

Your writing will focus on topics from the Core and the Options. You will describe, explain, discuss and evaluate psychological concepts and theories and show how research has advanced our understanding of human behaviour. For example, you will write about how hormones influence behaviour, or how decisions are made or how membership of social groups affects identity. You will also write about research methods and ethics, and HL students will have a separate paper exploring research methods (approaches to research) further.

Every SAQ or ERQ has two components: a topic and a command term. The command term is the signpost that tells you how you should demonstrate your knowledge and your ability to think critically.

As you can see below, command terms are ordered by how deeply you should write about a topic. 'Outline' only requires a brief account or summary but 'To what extent?' involves much more depth and critical thinking on your part.

Table 3.5 sets out the command terms used in IB Psychology:

Assessment Objective 1 (AO1)	Knowledge and understanding of specified content
Describe	Give a detailed account
Identify	Provide an answer from a number of possibilities (used on the HL research methods paper)
Outline	Give a brief account or summary
Assessment Objective 2 (AO2)	Application and analysis of knowledge and understanding
Comment	Give a judgment based on a given statement or result of a calculation (used on the HL research methods paper)
Explain	Give a detailed account including reasons or causes
Suggest	Propose a solution, hypothesis or other possible answer (used on the HL research methods paper)
Assessment Objective 3 (AO3)	Synthesis and evaluation
Contrast	Give an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Discuss	Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
Evaluate	Make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.
To what extent?	Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.

Table 3.5 Command Terms

4. How can I score top marks when I write in response to SAQs?

To reach the top markband, you need to demonstrate accurate knowledge of a topic. That involves defining psychological terms and explaining concepts. To support your answer, you must know the details of one or more studies. In short, know what you are writing about and stay focused in meeting the requirements of the command term.

5. How can I score top marks when I write in response to ERQs?

ERQs are much more complex, and it does take time to learn how to meet the requirements of these questions.

To reach the top markbands you must:

• Explain the problem or issue raised in the question.

• Use and explain relevant psychological research to support your ideas and develop your argument (this is sometimes called a thesis).

• Develop your ideas.

• Evaluate studies and think critically.

• Write an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion.

This is a long list so let’s unpack it. There are four considerations:

1. Focus

You must focus on the question. How can you show the examiner you are doing that? The best approach is to use the words in the question. When asked to discuss the effects of genes on behaviour, then the word “genes” and “behaviour” should appear in your essay many times. That is simple enough.

2. Research

You have to include relevant research studies. There are hundreds of thousands of psychological studies but we will focus on classic studies and important modern studies. The question here is how many. There are no hard and fast rules but at least two should be used. You do have to balance depth and breath. The studies should not be all classic studies. Aim for some modern ones from the late 20th and the 21st Centuries. In deciding which studies to use, and how many, think about what the study shows. There is not much point in having several studies that all make the same point!

3. An argument

You must develop an argument. Some subjects call an argument a thesis. Do not think of this argument as a fight or squabble as the word means something entirely different in academic writing. Instead see your argument as a way of showing you can think critically about the question by providing the reader with your point of view, your perspective. If you look below; all the ERQ command terms require you to make an argument.

Command Term	Examples of Arguments
Contrast	Give an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.	You could argue that two models of memory or two explanations of behaviour are somewhat different or very different.
Discuss	Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.	You could look at a range of theories and make an argument identifying the most convincing theory or hypothesis. For example, psychologists advance different arguments about the reliability of our memories. You could consider both views but argue that one viewpoint is better supported by evidence.
Evaluate	Make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.	Here you could argue that biological treatments for depression do have their limitations but on balance they are an effective treatment option.
To what extent?	Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.	This command term requires you make a clear statement about the extent to which a theory explains a behaviour successfully. Here you could argue that, to a large extent, genetic heritance influences behaviour.

Table 3.6 ERQ Command Term and Example Arguments

You should be able to write your argument in a sentence or two. Make it clear and explicit. You can write a sentence like: “This essay will argue that . . .” As well as stating your overall response to the ERQ you need to think critically about the studies you use to support your point of view. Some studies are very useful, and they do present convincing evidence to support your perspective, but all studies have their limitations. You need to identify these flaws and say how they affect your argument. Though you have taken a point of view, that does not mean you are blind to other perspectives or the limitations of the studies you are using to support your argument. During the course, you will be shown model answers that demonstrate critical thinking.

Further advice about critical thinking can be found in the IB Psychology Course Guide.

4. Organisation

Your essay should have an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion. This structure helps your reader follow your train of thought. To do this, you must link the parts of your argument together and have an orderly sequence of one idea after the other. Though the idiom “train of thought” originated before railway trains were invented, we can use this metaphor to help understand how the different parts of your essay should pull together.

The Introduction

Picture a railway train. Its powerful engine up front with a sign showing its destination. The passenger carriages follow behind with the conductor’s wagon last. Think of your introduction as the driving force behind your essay. It should tell the reader where you are taking them. You can do this by explaining the key terms of the questions and stating your argument. You should also identify the studies you will use to support that argument.

The body paragraphs

In the same way that train carriages need to be joined, so do your body paragraphs need linkages. Without these connections, your train of thought is lost. The best way to sequence paragraphs is to write about your studies in chronological order. In other words, if a paragraph makes a point by citing a study of 1968 it should come before research from 2006. Each paragraph should move your essay forward, and that is where the topic and the concluding sentence of each paragraph is essential. Both these sentences should relate to the ERQ title.

The conclusion

The last paragraph of your essay should sum up your key ideas and restate your argument. It should show that you have answered the ERQ.

Model Answers

Here is a response to an SAQ from the Biological Approach:

Explain how one gene may influence behaviour.

This response will discuss the connection between the 5-HTT serotonin transporter gene and depression. Genes are sections of DNA within the chromosomes that use amino acids to create proteins which then, in turn, instruct cells in the body how to behave. Considering this, genes have been linked to various behaviours, such as depression.

• Teacher comment: A very good definition of genes that responses to the command term.

The 5-HTT transporter gene transports the neurotransmitter serotonin from the synaptic gap between neurons, to be reuptaken by the pre-synaptic neurons. A lack of serotonin in certain brain regions has been shown to be linked with depression. A polymorphism (variation) on the 5-HTT gene is responsible for three different types of the gene (alleles): long/long allele; long/short allele; short/short allele. People with the long/long allele polymorphism seem to respond to stress in a more resilient way than those with the short/short variation, who more often have a depressive response to stressful events.

For example, a study conducted by Caspi et al. (2003) was a natural experiment that investigated whether a functional change in the 5-HTT gene was linked to a higher or lower risk of depression in an individual. They split their 847 participants into three groups, depending on the length of the alleles on their 5HTT transporter gene: two short alleles; one short and one long allele; two long alleles. They then calculated correlational analyses between stressful life events, length of alleles and depression. They found that participants with two short alleles in the 5HTT transporter gene reported more depression in response to stressful life events than either of the other two groups. Participants with two long alleles reported fewer depression symptoms. They concluded that there appeared to be a correlation between having short alleles on the 5HTT gene and instances of depression linked to stressful life events. Having two long 5HTT gene alleles seemed to offer protection from stress-related depression. This shows how one gene may interact with the environment to influence human behaviour.

• Teacher comment: After a detailed description of the study the student explicitly links back to the question.

Model Answers

Here is a response to an ERQ from the Sociocultural Approach:

'Evaluate one or more studies that have investigated Social Cognitive Theory.'

Psychologists have attempted to understand learning processes for decades, especially how we learn certain behaviours, as this is the very foundation of human psychology. One compelling explanation is Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), which proposes that observation of others (as role models) in one’s social environment influences behaviour. Bandura et al. (1961) and Konijn et al’s (2007) studies investigate how individuals learn aggressive behaviour and both provide evidence for the SCT. This essay will evaluate the aforementioned studies and argue that despite providing useful insights, further research is necessary to understand why humans adopt certain behaviours.

• Teacher comment: Issue identified

• Teacher comment: Clear link back to the question is made

SCT proposes that observational learning (the observation of models in an individual’s environment) influences behaviour. Granted, not all observed behaviours are adopted, so SCT outlines four factors that determine if a behaviour will manifest itself. Firstly, learners must pay attention to the model; attractiveness, authority, or self-identification with the model all influence this. Secondly, the behaviour must be remembered (retention). Self-efficacy (the belief that one can accomplish a task) is also important, with factors like positive mood and past successes increasing likelihood of a behaviour’s manifestation. Lastly, observers need motivation. This is affected by outcome expectancies learned through observation. If the observed model is rewarded for a behaviour, the learner’s motivation increases and vice-versa. This is termed vicarious reinforcement and explains why observers fail to adopt a behaviour despite meeting other requirements.

• Teacher comment: Describes the theory using all the relevant psychological terms

Bandura et al’s laboratory experiment (1961) demonstrates SCT. The researchers aimed to determine if children (observers) learn aggression from adults (models) and if they are more likely to imitate same-sex models (a form of self-identification). 36 boys and 36 girls from an American nursery were matched for aggression levels towards objects and subsequently split into groups of 12 using a 2x2 factorial design. IV1 was if the adult model was aggressive (towards Bobo doll) or not (assembled toys). IV2 was if participants saw a same-sex model. Remaining participants had no model; they served as a control. After exposure to their assigned models, children were placed into a toy room, but were soon taken out and told the toys weren’t for them. This created frustration in participants that could later lead to aggression. Finally, children were taken to a separate room with toys, including those used by their former models, for observation.

• Teacher comment: Study described accurately

Results showed that children observing aggressive models were significantly more verbally and physically aggressive than those in other groups (specifically towards Bobo). Additionally, children were more likely to imitate same-sex adults. Researchers concluded that exposure to aggressive models, especially same-sex models, cause children to imitate aggressive behaviours. The difference in aggression between children observing different models supports SCT. The heightened aggression from observing same-sex models also supports SCT by showing how self-identification influences behaviour adoption.

• Teacher comment: Link made back to the question

While this study is compelling evidence that observational learning influences behaviour, it has strengths and limitations to be considered. Through controlled factors and a 2x2 factorial design, the study provides clear evidence of a cause and effect relationship between the role model’s behaviour and the child’s behaviour. However, since this wasn’t a longitudinal study, there is no guarantee that children will continue to display aggressive behaviour. SCT argues that learned behaviours are continued, therefore the study’s support for SCT is limited by this. Additionally, the study method shows some bias, as Bobo dolls are made to be hit; there was a lack of emotions and vicarious reinforcement that would be present in real life, and so this lacks ecological validity. Lastly, the sample’s homogeneity limits generalizability, but this can be rectified through replication. Overall, the study provides some support for SCT.

• Teacher comment: Evaluation of the study made relevant to SCT and linked back to the question

• Teacher note: This essay could have omitted the second study completely and moved onto the conclusion and still gained excellent marks. It is longer than 800 words, and if you think you cannot write this much, then move onto your conclusion. Never submit and essay without a conclusion.)

Konijn et al’s laboratory experiment (2007) is a more modern study supporting SCT. Researchers aimed to investigate if violent videogames, mixed with wishful self-identification with violent characters, increases aggression. Their participants, 112 Dutch middle school students with low educational levels, answered questionnaires on aggressiveness and sensation-seeking. They were then randomly assigned to play a violent (aggressive model) or a non-violent game for 20 minutes. After this, participants played a competitive game against an ostensible partner, which involved winners blasting the loser with a loud noise. Participants chose a blast level between 1 and 10 and were told that the final three levels could cause permanent hearing damage. Finally, participants answered a questionnaire to assess wishful self-identification with the main character of their assigned game. Results showed that participants playing violent games were more aggressive towards their partner. Aggression was heightened when participants in the violent videogame group had an identification with the main character; these participants used nose levels 8-10, despite being told of its potential harm. Researchers concluded that aggressive models (violent videogames) and wishful self-identification (measured through questionnaires) increase the likelihood of adopting aggressive behaviours. The positive correlation between self-identification and observing aggressive models and measured aggression levels supports SCT.

• Teacher comment: Link to question made at end of accurate and detailed description of study

Strengths of the study were the controlled environment, assessment of prior aggression, measurement of unprovoked aggression, and use of a control group, which all all helped to establish a causal relationship and ruled out alternative explanations, ultimately making the study more internally valid. Compared to Bandura’s study, this experiment has high ecological validity as participants had an ostensible partner and an awareness of consequences. Additionally, researchers didn’t assume self-identification like Bandura, making results more reliable. However, like with the Bandura study, there is no guarantee that aggressive behaviour will continue. Results are also not generalizable to females, highly educated individuals, and other age groups, so the study must be replicated and compared to ensure reliability. Like Bandura’s study, Konijn’s has excellent controls, but really only supports SCT for a limited target population.

• Teacher comment: Evaluation again uses psychological terminology and weighs the strengths and limitations

To conclude, SCT states that behaviour is influenced by observational learning and is adopted based on various factors. Bandura et al (1961) and Konijn et al (2007) both provide some support for SCT by showing participants’ tendency to imitate aggressive behaviour seen by models, and that this behaviour is amplified with a self-identification factor. Though compelling, both studies have limitations, especially regarding population validity that make it difficult to generalise their findings in support for SCT. That being said, further research could be conducted to fully understand this phenomenon.

• Teacher comment: Final evaluative comment in conclusion and providing link back to the question

HL Paper 3

Paper 3 is for HL students only. It assesses applied knowledge of research methods (approaches to research) and ethical considerations when conducting research. The paper consists of a research scenario followed by a three short answer questions for a total of 24 marks. The questions will be chosen by the paper setters from the set of static questions outlined below. Therefore the questions will not vary from the format given in the grid.

Question 1

Question 1 will consist of all of the following questions (total 9 marks)

The questions will be assessed using an analytical markscheme

a. Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.	(3 marks)
b. Describe the sampling method used in the study.	(3 marks)
c. Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice.	(3 marks)

Question 2

Question 2 will consist of one of the following questions (total 6 marks)

The question will be assessed using an analytical markscheme

Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.	(3 marks)
Describe the ethical considerations in reporting the results and explain additional ethical considerations that could be taken into account when applying the findings of the study.	(3 marks)

Question 3

Question 3 will consist of one of the following questions (total 9 marks)

The question will be assessed using the rubric below

Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study.	(9 marks)
Discuss how a researcher could ensure that the results of the study are credible.	(9 marks)
Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias.	(9 marks)

Markband	Level Descriptor
0	The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-3	There is an attempt to answer the question, but the argument is mostly inaccurate. The response contains no or mostly inaccurate reference to the approaches to research. The response makes no direct reference to the stimulus material or relies too heavily on quotations from the text.
4-6	The question is partially answered, and the argument is accurate but limited in scope. The response contains mostly accurate references to the approaches to research. The response makes some use of the stimulus material.
7-9	The question is answered in a focused and effective manner with an accurate argument that addresses the main points. The response contains accurate references to the approaches to research and their strengths and limitations. The response makes effective use of the stimulus material.

Table 3.7 Rubric for Question 3

Example Paper 3 question

The stimulus material below is based on a study on the influences on young people’s use of drugs.

The aim of this study was to investigate processes involved in drug-related decision-making in an adolescent sample. According to the researchers, the identification of important factors in decisions to use drugs could potentially help to develop and inform new approaches to prevention and education.

A purposive sample was recruited through advertising in youth clubs, nightclubs, shelters and schools. The sample was multi-ethnic and consisted of 30 participants (age range 16 to 21) including both males and females. Most of the participants lived with their parents, some were homeless and some lived with friends.

Before the semi-structured interview, the participants signed an informed consent where they also gave consent to videotape the interviews for later transcription and inductive content analysis of the qualitative data. They were also assured of anonymity. The interview guide prepared by the researchers included topics such as drug use of friends, personal drug use experience, and reasons for using as well as not using drugs.

The results showed that reasons for using drugs ranged from the desire to relax and decrease inhibition to increase energy, relieve boredom and depressive thoughts, and increase motivation to get things done. Some participants reported that media coverage of specific drugs influenced their decision of whether or not to use drugs. For example, news stories about ecstasy-related deaths had made them decide that the benefits of using that drug were not worth the risk of negative effects. The data also suggested that the decision to use drugs was rather through personal choice than social pressure.

The researchers concluded that prevention strategies should take into account that decision-making in drug use is complex and therefore multiple influences should be addressed in the design of future prevention programmes. They also recommend that further research is needed to decide on the relative importance of the different factors that influence different people’s choice of drugs.

Answer all of the following three questions, referring to the stimulus material in your answers. Marks will be awarded for demonstration of knowledge and understanding of research methodology.

1	a	Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.[3]
	b	Describe the sampling method used in the study. [3]
	c	Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice. [3]
2		Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. [6]
3		Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study. [9]

Find below sample responses to these Paper 3 questions:

1	a	The method used in this study was semi-structured interviews. One characteristic of using this method to study drug use in adolescents is that a pre-prepared interview guide could be constructed. This enabled the researchers to decide beforehand which topics they were going to address when interviewing the adolescents. This included reasons for using drugs in the context of this study. This meant that the researchers could be certain that all the topics they wanted to be discussed were dealt with. Another characteristic of semi-structured interviews is that they can be informal because the open-ended questions could resemble a normal conversation. The semi-structured interviews in this study, therefore, had the potential to facilitate a rapport between the interviewer and each adolescent to aid discussion of a socially sensitive topic.
	b	The sampling method used in this study was purposive sampling. In this study, a purposive sample was obtained by advertising in youth clubs, shelters, nightclubs and schools. This was done to ensure that the sample had the characteristics that were salient to the research study. One of the main characteristics of the adolescent sample that the researchers required was that all the participants had experience of taking drugs. In addition, the chosen advertising locations were considered by the researchers to be the best locations for obtaining the sample they required. This was because they wanted to recruit younger people and these locations were, therefore, places where adolescents with the required characteristics were likely to gather.
	c	Another research method that could be used is a focus group interview. The researchers could have used 6-7 adolescents and asked them as a group to have a discussion about the decision-making processes they had when they were thinking about using drugs. This would have been an ideal size for the group as it would help ensure the adolescents felt more comfortable about taking part. As a result, the participants would be more likely, to be honest in how they responded to each other’s questions about drug use. This would lead to the generation of a large amount of data that would help the researchers gain more of an insight into younger people’s reasons for choosing to take drugs.
2		Ethical considerations that were applied in the study were the following: Informed consent – it says that participants signed an informed consent form that also gave permission for videotaping the interviews and for inductive content analysis of the tapes. This is important so that they know exactly what is happening during the interview and with the data afterwards. Anonymity – they were also assured of anonymity. Although it gives no further details, anonymity is usually ensured by the interviewer not knowing the participants’ names and the participants not being informed of the names of others who are being interviewed. Confidentiality – as anonymity was guaranteed, this also means that confidentiality of data is assured. If the participants are not identified at all by their names, then the data cannot be traced back to them during analysis or publication.
		Further ethical considerations that could have been applied were: Right to withdraw – to ensure that the participants were aware of their right to withdraw themselves at any time before during or after the interview, and their data from the analysis, including all material on the videotape. It is important that this is something of which participants are aware. Protection from harm – this is a sensitive issue and some of the participants were clearly vulnerable people who were homeless. There should have been an offer of psychological help given before and after the interview – as participants may well have been psychologically distressed. Researchers have to ensure they cause no psychological harm to participants, so they should have been offered at least psychological help, and if possible physical assistance with health matters and accommodation as well. Debriefing – to give participants details of the programmes planned, or how to contact the researchers for the results of the research, of their rights to see the videotape of their interview and the transcripts and the final conclusions and have anything changed or withdrawn before publication.
3		The aim of the study was to find factors that influenced decision making in relation to drug use and the inductive content analysis revealed a number of factors such as “desire to relax”, “decrease inhibition”, “increase energy” or “increase motivation and get things done”. By collecting qualitative data, therefore, the researchers were able to obtain rich information about drug use on the adolescent sample. As a result, the ability to transfer the findings to a wider population may be possible. This is due to the fact that using a qualitative data collection method to gain information about drug use means that a wide range of relevant information can be obtained. It could be argued therefore that the richness of the data collected in this study increases the likelihood that it can be transferred to other populations or settings. Nevertheless, it needs to be borne in mind that the study in the stimulus question is based on a rather small purposive sample in that the participants are selected based on the salient characteristics of having experience with drug use. Furthermore, the ability to transfer the results on drug use from this study could be reduced by the fact that the participants came from very different backgrounds and the only thing they had in common was that they used drugs. The study should perhaps be corroborated by other similar studies in order that transference of the findings to similar populations to those used in the study can be made with more confidence.
		An additional argument however against transference of the results is that the data collected may not be reflective of decision-making processes about drug-taking in similar age groups in other cultures around the world. For example, there may be other factors influencing drug use in other cultures such as the effects of poverty and a need to escape from the realities of living this way. Wider studies on the reasons why adolescents take drugs using samples from different cultures could, therefore, be beneficial.

Further Reading

The Pamoja Teachers Articles Collection has a range of articles relevant to understanding more about in assessment in IB psychology.

References

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

Bouchard, T.J., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223-228.

Crane, J., & Hannibal, J. (2009). Psychology Course Companion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Horn, J.M., Loehlin, J.C., & Willerman, L. (1979). Intellectual resemblance among adoptive and biological relatives: The Texas Adoption Project. Behavior Genetics, 9(3), 177-207.

Konijn EA; Bijvank MN; Bushman BJ.(2007). I wish I were a warrior: the role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1038-44.

Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8), 4398-4403.

Martinez, J. L. J., & Kesner, R. P. (1991). Pharmacology and biochemistry: Memory: drugs and hormones. In J. L. J. Martinez & R. P. Kesner (Eds.), Learning and memory: A biological view (pp. 127–163). Orlando, FL: Academic.

Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R.A. (1977). Intellectual similarities within families of both adopted and biological children. Intelligence, 1, 170-191.