How to Answer an ‘Evaluate’ ERQ (DP IB Psychology)

Evaluate one or more research methods used to investigate emotion and cognition [22 marks]

Commentary

One of the most widely used methods to investigate emotion and cognition is the self-report method, using a series of open and closed questions within questionnaires.  These are used when investigating flashbulb memories (FBM) to ascertain whether participants remembered a certain event, and what they remembered about where they were, what they were doing, who told them, how they and those around them responded at the time etc. There are strengths and limitations inherent in using self-reports which this essay will cover.

Questionnaires are more likely to yield quantitative data from closed questions but they are also able to generate qualitative data with the inclusion of open questions. Questionnaires on FBM can comprise a combination of standardised closed questions which are fixed (e.g. choose Yes/No) and open-ended questions, allowing a more flexible response. This is a strength because it allows for comparison and replication of the closed questions, while the open questions give the researchers a deeper understanding of the meaning of FBM for the participants.  However, closed questions mean a lack of choice for participants which means that their subjective experience/opinion may not be covered by the options offered, lowering validity.

Brown & Kulik (1977) used the questionnaire method of self-reporting to investigate the phenomenon of FBM.  Each participant answered a series of questions that started with, ‘Do you recall the circumstances in which you first heard that X had been assassinated?’ The list of assassinated leaders included Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, J.F. Kennedy, and General Franco. The final question asked them to recall an FBM surrounding a personal, unexpected shock, such as the death of a friend or relative. They were then invited to write a free recall of the event in any form or order and at any length. They were also asked to rate the personal importance of the event to themselves. This is a strength because it gave the participants the freedom to express the personal event in ways which suited them, thus ensuring validity.

Brown & Kulik used inductive content analysis of themes to analyse the longer answers to the open questions. They were able to identify the most frequent themes, categorising them as Place, Ongoing Activity, Informant, Own Affect (Emotions), Other Affect (Emotions of Others), and Aftermath. This is a strength as it ensures that qualitative analysis is not sprawling or vague: responses can be organised so that patterns emerge from the data.  

One limitation of using questionnaires to research FBM  is that participant expectations can decrease the validity of the responses, as participants try to give the researchers the answers they think the researchers are looking for.  Another limitation, particular to FBM research, is that often, although participants believe they are answering truthfully, their memories may be faulty, and there is usually no way of checking the external validity of their answers. Repeating the questionnaire using a longitudinal design can only show the consistency of memory, but not necessarily the truth of memory. Platania & Hertkorn (1998) found that participants were confident that their recall of the death of Princess Diana was accurate over time, but their findings showed that after 10 weeks the consistency of their FBM had declined hugely.

Talarico & Rubin (2003) gave questionnaires, regarding the memory of first hearing about the New York terrorist attacks of 2001, to 54 university students. The questionnaire also asked for their memory of a recent everyday event. In addition, for each of these events, participants were asked to complete the Autobiographical Memory Questionnaire (AMQ), a rating-scale measure that was designed to assess various properties of autobiographical memory. This is a strength as rating scales provide clear quantitative data which can be compared and analysed statistically. Rating scales can be replicated to check for reliability using either the same sample or different samples, hence they can lead to high reliability.

Participants in Talarico & Rubin’s study completed the same questionnaire again, either 1, 6, or 32 weeks after the first testing session. The data was recorded and coded, allowing for comparison with earlier answers. Consistency for the flashbulb memories and everyday memories did not differ, in both cases declining over time. However, self-ratings of vividness, recollection, and belief in the accuracy of memory declined only for everyday memories. In other words, the FBM of the participants declined but they believed that their recall of the event was still accurate. Using the test-retest method was the only way to highlight this disparity, hence the questionnaire method can be shown to have useful external reliability.

To conclude, questionnaires using closed and open questions are useful for gaining data that can be compared across and within a sample of participants to check for consistency of memory and for the subjective experience of the event. However, questionnaires are limited in that the internal validity of the answers cannot be guaranteed due to the personal and subjective responses of each participant. 

Introduction: focus on the question and make immediate entry into the research method of self-report questionnaires. Link to command term in the final sentence.

Secure knowledge and understanding are shown by the use of questionnaires. First evaluation point with the explanation provided. Use of the sentence starter ‘ This is a strength because…’ makes this evaluation point effective.

Use of research to support the answer by giving a detailed description of Brown & Kulik’s research. A strength is included as part of the ‘Evaluate’ command term.

A strength is linked to the method of qualitative data analysis. The strength is explained and is effective.

Limitations of the method linked to FBM are considered. Validity is used as a strong evaluation issue. Clear examples are given. 

A second study used questionnaires to investigate FBM. Evaluation is included, with the strength explained, making this point effective.

Focus on testing external reliability for more in-depth evaluation.

The conclusion summarises what was explored throughout the essay.

Word count: 808

[22 marks]