ERQ sample: Acculturation

The following sample is a response to the question: 

Discuss acculturation. 
Discuss asks students to consider a range of arguments. Students may discuss Berry's model, criticisms of the model, difficulties in studying acculturation, or
the implications of acculturation research.
The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks. Comments about the essay are included below.
The highlighted areas of the essay demonstrate critical thinking.

Sample essay
Essay content Marker's comment

Acculturation is the process of learning and adopting the behaviours of another culture.  There are
A basic definition of acculturation
several groups that do this – immigrants, refugees, exchange students, people working for international
is provided and the focus of the
companies.  But not everyone does it to the same extent.  Psychologists have found that the way that one essay is identified.
acculturates can have an effect on their mental and physical health.  

Berry proposed a model that was based on two key factors. First, one’s feelings about the need to
preserve their own culture; Second, one’s relationship with the new culture. He proposed four strategies
for acculturation. Assimilation is when one “abandons” one’s own culture and completely adopts the Berry's model is described with
values and behaviours of the new culture. Integration is when one is comfortable in both regard to the four acculturation
cultures.  Separation is when one maintains their own culture and does not adopt the values/behaviours strategies.
of the new culture.  And finally, marginalization is when one does not identify with their own culture
and yet is not accepted or does not identify with the new culture.  

Wang et al (2010) wanted to see how one’s relationship with both their own culture and the US culture A relevant study is described and its
would affect their mental health.  The sample was made up of Cuban university students; all had at least findings are stated.
one parent born in Cuba. The students took a Likert-scale survey that measured their attitudes towards
both cultures, the way they identified themselves (American, Cuban-American, Cuban) and their levels
of depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. They found that those who were comfortable in both cultures –
that is, were truly bicultural – had better mental health.

The study is important because it does not just look at one’s relationship with either the host culture and
their home culture, but the relationship with both of the cultures.  It seems to support Berry’s model that
integration is the most “positive” strategy.  However, the sample was taken from an introductory The study is evaluated.  Notice that
psychology class, so there is a sampling bias that may influence the outcome.  First, the sample has a it does not just simply say that the
certain level of education and may feel that they have more opportunities in the new culture.  In sample is biased, but clearly
addition, the university was in Miami which has a large Cuban community.  The results may have been explains how it is biased and why
different if a student was only one of a few Cubans in a community.  Finally, it may be assumed that this may have influenced the
findings of the study.
they are members of a certain socioeconomic class and therefore have a positive relationship with their
new country.  All of this could have affected the results, meaning that their positive mental health may
be the result of many more factors than simply their identification with both cultures.

Another study looked at refugees coming from North Korea. In this case, we have a factor that Berry’s
model does not discuss – why we people have to acculturate.  In the case of people in international
companies or even many immigrants, there is a choice to move to another country with the hope of
better economic opportunity. However, refugees are escaping war and oppression – and this means that
they may suffer from trauma that plays a role in their acculturation process. A study by Kraeh et al
(2016) looked at the mental health of North Korean refugees who had moved to Seoul. Over 400 refugees A second study is described and the
were given surveys and they were also given a medical check-up. The surveys looked at both their level findings are clearly stated. The
of acculturation and their mental health.  The study showed that those who had acculturated into the study is linked to the question.
South Korean culture had better mental and physical health.  However, they also found that those who
were more recently arrived had reduced physical health because of the stress of South Korean
society.  However, they had positive mental health as they were no longer living in North Korea.  The
researchers argued that over time, the improved mental health led to better physical health as they
acculturated and learned coping strategies for their new environment.  

The study had a relatively large sample size and used a highly standardized approach.  The surveys The study is evaluated.  Although
looked at depression and anxiety but did not measure levels of PTSD – or ask for narrative stories of the
individual’s experience, so although we assume that the refugees in this study have suffered from strengths are not discussed in much
trauma, that is not actually part of the research.  In addition, it is a rather unique situation in which detail, this is not required by the
Koreans from the North move to the South.  Although there are clearly political and economic "discuss" command term. The
differences, the cultural differences may not be as great as moving to a Western culture.   Therefore, the discussion of variables that may
transferability of the findings is limited.  Finally, knowing how difficult it is to leave North Korea, one have affected the findings is well
explained.
has to wonder what possible traits led to their ability to flee and how this may then affect their ability to
acculturate as well as their mental health.

The study of acculturation has a problem with construct validity. First, the four strategies that Berry
identifies are difficult to measure. It assumes that people fall neatly into one of the four This paragraph addresses the
boxes.  Secondly, when looking at mental health – especially when doing cross-cultural diagnosis – this command term of "discuss."  The
is problematic. It assumes that mental health is expressed and discussed in the same way across problems with measuring the
cultures.  Finally, when measuring one’s level of “acculturative stress”, it is questionable to what extent different constructs is explained.
this can be quantified.

Acculturation research is complex.  It is a holistic approach to understanding human health and

wellness, so it is difficult to know the extent to which the many variables involved play a role.  In
refugees, we cannot discount the fact that they may have experienced trauma.  In addition, many
refugees and asylum seekers can never go back to their country.  This is very different from international The discussion ends by focusing on
workers who plan to return “home” and do not see an advantage to acculturation. There are also Berry's model and addresses some
limitations of Berry’s model of acculturation. The model is in one direction – immigrants need to fit into of its limitations, while also
the mainstream culture.  This has been criticized by some as being hierarchical and not recognizing that addressing the question of research
culture changes over time. It also labels people as having “a strategy” whereas strategies may be context- that tries to be more holistic in its
approach.
dependent. A university student may feel very comfortable in their own culture when celebrating
traditional rituals or discussing family but may be unable to relate to their own culture when discussing
political ideas.  La Fromboise’s Alternation model argues that people’s relationship with culture changes
based on time and situation. Overall, the argument is that the model is helpful, but it is overly simplistic.

Words: 1059
ERQ sample: Evaluating SIT
The following sample is a response to the question: 

Evaluate Social Identity Theory. 

Evaluate asks students to consider the strengths and limitations of an argument. For this response, you need to focus on the strengths and limitations of the
theory - and not only on the research.
The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks. Comments about the essay are included below.
The highlighted areas of the essay demonstrate critical thinking.

Sample essay
Essay content Marker's comment

The sociocultural approach argues that our behaviour is influenced by other people, even when we believe that we are acting A focused
independently.  Although we have our own individual identity, we also have identities that are based on our group memberships. introduction that
According to Social Identity Theory, when we are made aware of these social identities, our behaviour may be influenced. There addresses the
are strengths and limitations of the theory. command term.

Social Identity Theory was first proposed by Tajfel.  He argued that there we divide the world into “in-groups” and “out- The theory is clearly
groups.” Tajfel says that we join groups through a process of social categorization – that is, categorizing groups by traits such as described and
nationality, religious beliefs, football fans, or other traits. We decide which groups we identify with – and which are “out-
appropriate
groups.’  When we join a group, we go through a process of social identification. This is when we conform to the norms of that
group and adopt their behaviours. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we terminology is
then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably used.  This affects
with other groups. Sometimes one of our "social selves" can become more salient - that is, we can become more aware of that criterion B.
aspect of our identity. Social Identity Theory predicts that when one of our social identities becomes salient, it will have an
influence on our behaviour.

Levine et al carried out a study to find out if one’s identity as a fan of a team would have an influence on helping behaviour. The The study is clearly
study was a field experiment. The sample was made up of 45 self-identified Manchester United fans. Each was told that the outlined in terms of
location of the study was changed and they had to walk across campus to the new room. Along the way, a confederate wearing
either a Manchester, a Liverpool, or a plain t-shirt fell and cried out in pain. The researchers found that social identity played a
aim, procedure, and
role in whether they helped or not. They were more likely to help the Manchester fan than either the Liverpool fan or the plain t- findings.  This
shirt.  This demonstrates what is called in-group favouritism. affects criterion C.

Evidence of critical
thinking.  Ethics are
As Levine’s study was a field experiment, it had high ecological validity. Deception was used so that the participants were discussed -but in
unaware that when the confederate fell, they were actually part of an experiment.  This lowered the risk of demand order to show how
characteristics. However, since it was done in a naturalistic setting, it is possible that extraneous variables could have played a
role in the results.  For example, it is difficult to make sure that the confederate's behaviour is exactly the same in all cases or
demand
that, for example, the sunlight/temperature is always the same.  This is why laboratory studies are important; they have higher characteristics were
internal validity. controlled for - not
as a criticism of the
study. 

Drury et al carried out a lab study to investigate whether social identity theory could be used to explain prosocial behaviour. The
study randomly allocated 40 students to one of two conditions. They used a virtual reality simulator to experience a fire in the The study is clearly
London metro. They could either help people or push them out of their way to get to safety. After reading an article on a historic outlined in terms of
metro fire, they were either given the group-identification scenario or the individual scenario.  In the group scenario, they were
told that they were on their way home from a football match with a group of other fans of their team.  The fans all wore the same
aim, procedure, and
colour vest as the participant in the VR simulation. In the individual scenario, they were told that they were on their way home findings.  This
from a day of shopping. The vests were not all the same colour. The participants in the group identification scenario gave more affects criterion C.
help and pushed others less than those that did have a group identification.

Drury’s experiment was a lab experiment and had high internal validity. The researchers were able to control and standardize the A good contrast of
VR environment. This allows for a stronger cause-and-effect conclusion than Levine’s experiment.  However, although the VR the two studies. The
simulation was realistic, it was not real.  They would not have experienced real fear and they knew that these were not real
limitations are not
people. It is the combination of research like Levine’s (high ecological validity) and Drury’s (high internal validity) that helps to
support the Social Identity Theory. only identified, they
 are explained.

There is an
explanation of the
The theory and research have many applications.  It can be used to explain why people help in emergency situations.  It has been robust nature of the
argued that increasing one’s salience as being part of a group leads to less panic and more cooperation when responding to an
emergency.  Social identity theory has also been used to explain how juries make decisions and why we may or may not
theory (heuristic
conform to a group. validity).  This is a
strength of the
theory.

That being said, there are some limitations of the theory. Social identity theory looks at several “stages” – going from
A limitation of the
categorization to self-esteem.  However, it is difficult to observe this progression under naturalistic conditions.  For example, it theory is clearly
is difficult to measure one’s level of “social identification.” A person may be a Manchester fan, but not at the same level as other identified and
fans.  It is also difficult to measure how “salient” one’s identity is.  In manipulated situations like the research above, we can explained in some
assume that the social identity was salient, but in a real-life situation, we have many different social identities.  It is difficult to detail. Examples are
predict which one (for example, football fan, father, teacher, foreigner) might actually motivate one’s behaviour.  It may actually given to illustrate
be the interaction of different identities that plays the strongest role in predicting one’s behaviour.
the limitation.

A conclusion that
Social Identity Theory is a robust theory that can be used to explain a range of behaviours. However, its constructs are difficult
clearly summarizes
to measure in naturalistic situations and the theory does not accurately predict an individual’s behaviour in a specific situation,
but instead shows us trends in behaviour. the evaluation of the
theory.
ERQ sample: Formation of stereotypes
The following sample is a response to the question: 

Discuss the formation of stereotypes. 

Discuss asks students to consider a range of arguments.
The question may also be asked as "formation of stereotypes or the effects of stereotyping on behaviour."
The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks. Comments about the essay are included below.
The highlighted areas of the essay demonstrate critical thinking.

Sample essay
Essay content Marker's comment

A stereotype is when we make a generalization about the behaviours of a group and then assume that a Stereotyping is clearly
member of that group will show that behaviour.  A stereotype is a way of interpreting the world around us defined. The two
and is a cognitive schema.  There are many theories as to how stereotypes are formed.  One theory is the theories to be
social identity theory.  We form our stereotypes when compare our in-group to an out-group.  Another discussed are
theory is that stereotyping is a cognitive bias called illusory correlation, when we see a correlation between a identified and briefly
group and a behaviour that is not really there.  outlined.

Social identity theory says that our identity and behaviour is influenced by the groups we belong to.  Social identity theory
says that we choose a group to belong to based on traits that we think are similar to our own.  This is called social Social identity theory
categorization.  SIT argues that we divide the world into in-groups and out-groups.  We identify with our group and begin to is explained and
conform to the norms of our group.  We also compare our in-group to the out-group.  We see our in-group as superior.  We linked to how we
also see the out-group as all sharing common traits.  This “out-group homogeneity” is the basis for stereotyping.  Often these form stereotypes.
traits are negative.  This is a way of justifying that our in-group is better than the out-group and raises our self-esteem
Hilliard and Liben wanted to see if making one’s in-group more salient would lead to the formation of stereotypes in children. An approropriate
Their study looked at two different preschools.  Both schools had a “gender neutral” policy. In both schools, the children did a study is described. 
pre-test to measure their level of gender stereotyping.  They then had the teachers in one school make children more aware of
their gender by grouping them by sex, posting their work on different bulletin boards, and using gendered language like, “boys
The aim, procedure
and girls.”  The other group was a control.  After two weeks, the researchers found that the children in the “high salience” and findings are
condition had a significant increase in their gender stereotypes than the control. clearly outlined.

The study is
The study was a true experiment, so it can show a cause and effect relationship between in-group salience and stereotype
formation. The two schools were randomly assigned to conditions and the “gendered behaviour” of the teacher was evaluated.  There is
manipulated by the researcher. The study was done in a naturalistic setting (school), so it has high ecological validity. The use clear evidence of
of a pre-test/post-test allowed the researcher to see change over the two-week period.  However, since the children also went critical thinking with
home, the internal validity is questionable.  It was not possible to control  for other variables that may have had an influence on regard to the
the children.  However, it was only a two week period, so it is unlikely that such variables would have a significant effect on ecological and
the children.  Also, since the children’s parents had chosen to put their children in a gender-free school, it is likely that their
internal validity of the
parents would not have an effect on the development of these stereotypes.
study.

Illusory correlation is a cognitive bias.  As humans, we always try to explain “why” something happens.  This means that we
often see a cause and effect relationship where there isn’t one.  Hamilton and Gifford wanted to see if knowing that a group A second theory is
was a minority would have an effect on stereotyping.  The researchers should a group of American university students a series outlined (it was also
of slides.  Each slide had a positive or negative behaviour for a member of group A or B.  There were twice as many comments described in the
for A than B, but the proportion of good to bad behaviours was the same.  When the participants were asked to rate the traits of introduction). The
each group, they said that A was more positive. They also recalled more negative traits for group B than for group A.  The study is appropriate
researchers argued that since the group is smaller, negative behaviours are more distinctive – and we assume that this
and clearly explained.
characteristic of the group.

The study manipulates the IV (size of the group), so the study is an experiment.  The researchers used A and B for the two Clear evidence of
groups to avoid any previous stereotypes influencing the participants.  This control helps to eliminate extraneous variables.  critical thinking.  The
However, the study is very artificial and does not reflect how we might make stereotypes in the real world.  Often stereotypes
study is evaluated and
are developed by direct interaction with people, not from just hearing a statement about them.  In addition, one’s emotions,
intelligence, or even social identity may play a key role in the formation of these illusory correlations. Finally, it could be that there is counter-
the fact that they were told it was a smaller group had an effect  on the participants simply because of the connotation of a evidence provided
"minority."  When they did the experiment again and didn't tell participants that group B was a minority, the illusory with the follow-up
correlation was not observed. study by Hamilton
 and Gifford.

Studying the formation of stereotypes is difficult to do in a naturalistic setting. There are too many extraneous variables that
would lower the internal validity of the research.  It is also not possible to “see” a person’s thinking. Psychologists have to There is a discussion
make assumptions about the process which resulted in a stereotype.  It is also difficult to measure someone’s “in-group bias”
of the formation of
or the level of “salience” – even in a lab situation.  However, stereotyping seems to be a natural cognitive process.  In order for
us to simplify our understanding of the world around us, we create schema that generalize about a group. So, when talking stereotypes to
about “Americans”, everyone has a general sense of who we are talking about.  This oversimplification of the world means conclude the essay.
that we have to consciously try not to stereotype and to recognize people’s individuality.

Words: 945
ERQ marking: Cultural dimensions
Below you will find three sample ERQs for the question: 

Discuss the role that one cultural dimension may have on behaviour.

Note that the same approach could be taken for Discuss effects of culture on behaviour.

Sample 1
Cultural dimensions are aspects of a culture that are made up of cultural norms. It is important to understand these cultural dimensions in order to facilitate
negotiations and communication between nations and communities. A handshake in the Western world signifies the closing of the deal whereas in Russia it
does not signify anything particular other than business is taking place. This is an example of a difference in cultural dimensions that can lead to a
misunderstanding.
There are several cultural dimensions.  There is power-distance.  This focuses on how much people respect authority and rules.  Russia has high power distance.
There is also uncertainty avoidance in which people do not like ambiguity.  They want to be told what to do.  Then there is masculinity and femininity. 
Masculine cultures value work. Then there is time orientation.  This dimension is about whether one saves money for the future or only lives in the moment.
This essay will focus on the cultural dimensions of collectivism vs. individualism. A person in a collectivist society will tend to identify strongly with the
community. In collectivist societies working together is important. Individualistic cultures focus on the individual.
This cultural dimension of collectivism vs. individualism affects social identity theory, memory and also conformity. Berry found that Inuits from Canada
conformed significantly less than a tribe from Sierra Leone. The Inuits had a more individualistic society where success depended more on individual hunting
as opposed to the Sierra Leone people who have a more collectivist society. Survival in Sierra Leone depended on the annual harvest that everyone had to work
for together. However, this study is problematic because the participants were deceived during the Asch test.  When they found out that they had conformed
after being lied to by the researcher, they could have been emotionally traumatized. This is a serious ethical consideration which makes the results less valid.
However, from these results, we can see that people are more likely to conform in a collectivist society. This is because in order for the group to succeed it is
important for people to cooperate.  This affects people in schools as well, where conformity is very important in order to succeed.
Whether a culture is collectivist or not will affect memory. In a Western individualist society people tend to remember their own successes more and in
collectivistic cultures, they remember the group’s activity more.  However, there are always exceptions in each culture.  For example, Americans remember 9-
11 which is not an individual success; it was a national tragedy.
To conclude, the cultural dimension of individualism versus collectivism affects behaviour in several ways. It can affect the level to which we conform as well
as what we actually remember.
457 words

Sample 2
Cultural dimensions were ‘discovered’ by Hofstede in 1980. They are best described as the values and norms of a culture that guide behaviour.  Hofstede
developed his theory by carrying out a content analysis of questionnaires given to employees from different nationalities of an international company. The
questionnaires asked questions about relationships with others, attitudes toward authority, need for clarity and rules and attitudes about work and leisure time. 
One cultural dimension he identified is “individualism vs collectivism” or I-C. It is debatable to what extent cultural dimensions may influence an individual's
behaviour.
An individualistic culture focuses on individual achievement, independence and self-actualization.  Individualistic cultures emphasize one’s autonomy and right
to express one’s personal opinion and feelings. These cultures also respect privacy. Collectivistic cultures focus on interdependence and social harmony.  In
these cultures it is not appropriate to directly express one’s personal opinion or show emotion.  Privacy is less important that acceptance and conformity to
one’s group.
One way that I-C influences behaviour is seen in Berry’s study of conformity. Berry tested Temne farmers, who were collectivistic, and Inuit hunters, who were
individualistic.  Both groups were given a version of Asch’s line test. As in the original, they were shown a line and then asked to match it with one of the lines
on a slide.  In this version, the participant was tested alone, but in some cases was told “Other Temne have said that line 4 is the best match.  What do you
think?”  Is some cases, this was correct and in others it was not.  Berry found that the Temne (collectivistic) were more likely to conform to the wrong answer if
they were told that other members of their group had also chosen that line.
This study is problematic in that the task is rather artificial. This could also be seen as a strength because the study is highly controlled and has high internal
validity.  However, the task is also meaningless and choosing the wrong answer has no personal risk for the participant. This may not reflect what happens
under natural conditions, so the study has low ecological validity. However, it could be argued that if they conform on such a meaningless task, this shows just
how powerful the cultural dimension actually is.
Another way that I-C influences behaviour can be seen in Parker’s study of depression in white Australian and Chinese out-patients. Australians are a highly
individualistic culture and Chinese are a collectivistic culture.  Both groups were asked to complete a survey to measure both their level of I-C and their
symptoms of depression.  Each symptom was ranked for intensity.  The results showed that 60% of Chinese reported that their somatic symptoms were the
reason for seeking help, where only 13% of Australians did.  Australians were more likely to have emotional symptoms. This makes sense as collectivistic
cultures are less likely to express emotions to people outside their family than individualistic cultures.
Unlike Berry’s experiment, this study is naturalistic.  The patients are self-reporting on their symptoms and a correlation was drawn between the level of I-C
and the symptoms.  Since Berry’s study is a quasi-experiment, both studies are not able to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the dimension
and the behaviour, but trends can be identified.
It is important to remember that dimensions – in this case I-C - refer to a trend in behaviour within a culture or a group. An individual's behaviour may differ
from the rest of the culture.  That is – a person from a collectivistic culture may be highly autonomous and someone from an individualistic culture may strive
for social harmony.  Although dimensions have been used to help with international business and to explain acculturative stress, there is the danger of applying
these cultural dimensions to all members of a culture, leading to stereotyping or the “ecological fallacy.”  Cultural dimensions leads to an “etic” approach to
research in which we compare cultures, rather than an emic approach which simply tries to understand a single culture.  Dimensions are a good way to
generalize about cultures, but not a good way to talk about individuals.
685 words
Focus on the question: The introduction clearly sets up the essay.  The question to be discussed is clearly identified and the concept of "dimensions" is clearly
defined.  2 marks.
Knowledge and understanding: The response demonstrates a clear understanding of the dimension.  Psychological terminology is generally used effectively,
although the concepts of "etic" and "internal validity" are not well linked to the question of cultural dimensions. 4 marks.
Use of research: There are three studies that are clearly outlined - Hofstede's original study, Berry on conformity and Parker on depression. Parker could be a
bit more clearly explained with regard to the procedure and findings. 5 marks
Critical thinking: There is some evidence of critical thinking.  There is an attempt to both evaluate the studies and to have a more holistic discussion of
cultural dimensions. Ideas could be a bit more developed overall. The final paragraph lacks development.  4 marks
Clarity and organization: The response is well-organized and language communicates effectively. 2 marks.
Total: 17 marks
Predicted: 7

Sample 3
Culture has many definitions and it is considered to be a complex system that includes several different aspects of a certain society. Hofstede defines culture as
the schemas that influence individual behaviour towards others and his/her surroundings and this behaviour is learned through daily interactions with other
group members.
Cultural dimensions are defined as the way people understand their behaviour and those of others. One typical research investigating how cultures interact is
that of Hofstede in IBM, a multinational company including many different nationalities in their staff. Hofstede made surveys to the 40 largest nationality
groups in the company making a cross-cultural analysis to understand and analyze the results, giving him insight into the different roles and behaviours taken
by the personnel at IBM.
This essay will discuss the cultural dimension of individualism. In an individualist society, individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their
immediate family. This type of cultural dimension is characteristic of Western cultures where there is a great importance on only caring for oneself and those to
whom an individual is in direct relationship. This is in contrast to a collectivist society where individuals since birth are integrated into larger families and
social in-groups from which the individual obtains care and support. Individualist societies have a larger emphasis on trying to obtain a more personal
gratification from concentrating in the individual. Unlike in the collectivist society where an individual who does not follow the norms of the family or society
may face severe consequences.
A study by Berry showed that people from collectivistic cultures are less likely to have flashbulb memories than people from individualistic cultures.  They
asked Chinese and Americans to try to remember where they were, what they were doing and who they were with when they heard news about someone’s
death.  The research showed that Americans remembered more and were more accurate than the Chinese. This is because what the individual was doing at the
time is more important in individualistic cultures.  However, this study cannot be generalized to all cultures as only Chinese and Americans were studied.
Another study showed the effect of dimensions was Parker’s study of Chinese patients with depression.  They found that Chinese patients had physical
symptoms instead of cognitive symptoms.  This is because they have to hide their emotions so they are converted into physical symptoms.  In western societies,
it is normal for people to talk about their feelings, so this might explain the difference.  A problem with this study is that only Chinese patients were studied so
we cannot generalize to other cultures.  In addition, they only studied depression. We do not know if Chinese would show physical symptoms for other
disorders.
Individualism as a cultural dimension has an important role to a large extent over an individual, as it guides and gives norms and expectations to how
individuals should behave in their societies. These norms are learned from an early stage in life and give the individual the mental schema on how to behave
towards their surroundings and others, as Hofstede (2001) explained with his definition of culture.
515 words
Focus on the question: There is an attempt at focus, but it is not well sustained.  The introduction does not clearly frame the argument for the essay. 1 mark.
Knowledge and understanding: The dimension is not clearly defined and the description has some inaccuracies/over generalizations.  Psychological
terminology is not used effectively - for example, there is no clear understanding of flashbulb memory demonstrated. 2 marks.
Use of research: There are two studies used to support the essay.  It is not a problem that the first study is misattributed. However, the details of the studies are
lacking and there are many errors in the descriptions and interpretations of the findings. 2 marks.
Critical thinking: There is an attempt at critical thinking, but it is formulaic and of marginal relevance to the question. 1 mark.
Clarity and organization: Language and organization are not always clear.  1 mark.
Total: 7 marks
Predicted: 3
ERQ marking: SCT
Below you will find three sample ERQs for the question: 

Evaluate Social Cognitive Theory.

For each of the samples, refer to the rubric to award marks. After each sample, there is a predicted grade as well as feedback on the strengths and limitations of
the sample.

Sample 1
Social Cognitive Theory, developed by Albert Bandura, explains how humans learn behaviour by observation and being reinforced by society.  The theory has
been used to explain human aggression. The main aspects of Bandura’s theory include reciprocal determinism, reinforcements, behavioural capability,
expectations, observational learning, and self efficacy. Initially tested with the Bobo Doll experiment, Bandura suggested that witnessing a certain type of
behaviour can cause a person to replicate it later on. My position on this is that it can be applicable to only certain groups, such as children, and that there are
many factors that can change behaviour in people.
A prime aspect of SCT is observational learning. The Bobo Doll experiment famously launched Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, where he suggested that
children could learn aggression by witnessing it. A strength in this experiment is that it’s very simple to replicate, as all the variables such as gender and age,
can be controlled. It has been replicated and shown that the results are generally accurate. However, a limitation is that all the participants were kindergartners
from Stanford professors meaning that they most likely came from a wealthy background, so this experiment is not able to have any predictive validity across
different classes. There is also no way of knowing whether these aggressive behaviours were long term, as the children were only looked at during one point of
their lives. It is also hard to pinpoint what exactly aggression is. It can be argued that bashing a Bobo doll can or cannot be aggressive, and it depends on the
child’s mindset when they hit the doll.
Evaluating Bandura’s theory would require a reductionist’s approach, as you are looking to see how one sole variable affects behaviour, and this is problematic
for a number of reasons. On one hand it is positive because if the theory were true, we would be able to reduce one variable from a situation to prevent
aggression. On the other hand, there is no possible way of knowing that one sole variable is the cause of behaviour. Although experiments are well controlled to
prevent the influence of confounding variables, many factors can affect a person's behaviour. In the Bobo Doll experiment, for example, we have no way of
knowing if the amount of time the child was given with the Bobo doll affected the aggressiveness, or whether or not the children recognised the adult hitting the
doll from when the researchers took observations of the children on the playground, and whether or not that could have affected the level of aggression in
correlation with familiarity.
The theory itself was built on one experiment initially, and although that study has been extensively replicated it has little heuristic validity. There are not many
instances in real life where children are exposed being alone with adults strangers who are acting aggressively. The closest situation that it can be compared to
is domestic abuse within a child’s family, but even then the child knows the aggressor. And although connecting this study to domestic abuse can be insightful,
there would be little that could be done in terms of prevention, as domestic abuse is often unknown by outsiders and not understood by children. The ethics of
the study are also questionable, as it is unknown whether or not the children had the right to withdraw from the study. It should also be considered that this
experiment could have had long-term consequences for the children.
As the research done by Bandura demonstrates, aggression can be learned by observation. However, this does not suggest that by being exposed to and
aggressor will cause aggression in others. It is difficult to isolate variables to determine correlation, and the applications of the study are difficult as it will never
be certain whether or not x causes y.
632 words
Focus on the question: Although there is some recognition of the topic of the question, the response is generally not focused on the question.  There is no real
attempt to evaluate the theory.  0 marks.
Knowledge and understanding: The response demonstrates limited understanding of the theory.  There are a series of appropriate terms identified, but none of
them are explained.  There is some reference to observational learning, but this is also limited. Psychological terminology is used, but often incorrectly - for
example, "accuracy" and "heuristic validity." 1 mark.
Use of research: There is an attempt to use one study - the Bashing Bobo study.  However, there is very little understanding of the study shown and it is not
used effectively to make an argument. 1 mark
Critical thinking: There is an attempt to evaluate the study, but it is often undeveloped or incorrect.  The evaluation is focused on the study rather than on the
theory. 3 marks.
Clarity and organization: The response demonstrates some organization and clarity, but it is not sustained. 1 mark.
Total: 6 marks
Predicted: 3

Sample 2
This essay will evaluate the Social Cognitive Learning Theory through its application to aggression. The social cognitive learning theory is a theory proposed
by Albert Bandura that suggests that human behaviour can be learned through observation, from watching models and imitating their behaviour. Effective
modeling requires three conditions: attention, retention and motivation. In order for the learning to happen, attention must be paid to the model; this can be
affected by the authority, attractiveness or the desirability of the models behaviour or the outcome of said behaviour.  If the model is seen as being rewarded for
a behaviour, the observer will also want to receive such a reward.  This is known as vicarious reinforcement. Following the observation, the learner must be
able to retain and remember the behaviour. Finally, the learner must have the motivation to repeat the behaviour based on the outcome expectancy. Several
factors affect the learner's motivation to replicate behaviour, such as the likeability of the model, identification with the model and the consistency of the
behaviour. In addition, the individual must feel that he can actually do what the model can do - in other words, there must be a feeling of self-efficacy.
Bandura's Bashing Bobo Study (1961), explored the theory through a lab experiment investigating how aggressive behaviour develops in children. His aim was
to see whether or not and to what extent the children would replicate the behaviour of a model assigned to them. Bandura selected 36 boys and 36 girls, ranging
in age from 3 - 5 years old. The children were divided into groups to study to what extent the participants would imitate an aggressive v.s nonaggressive model
as well as same-sex v.s non-same sex model. Bandura's findings were that children who saw aggressive models, did in fact act more aggressively themselves,
boys were in general more aggressive than girls and were more influenced by male models. Girls were more physically aggressive when in observing a male
model but were more verbally aggressive when with a female model. The study strengthens Bandura's theory as it was clear that the participants (both boys and
girls) imitated their model.
The study is also evidence of the motivation factor of cognitive learning; boys were more influenced by male models because they identified with them and
girls were more likely influenced by the female-models. Boys also viewed the male model as an authority figure; one of the participants even compared the
behaviour of the model to that of his father. This identification provided a sense of self-efficacy - that is, that the children were able to do what the model had
done. Another advantage of the study is that the participants were pre-tested on their aggression levels using researcher triangulation and the outliers were
removed from the experiment. A limitation of this study is that the setting is rather artificial and does have ecological validity; the encounter with the model is
very brief and the children are in an unusual environment, being placed alone in a room with a stranger. The aggression is also measured on a doll and does not
reflect on how the children would act with a real-life human being or animal. Finally, the study only looks at the short-term effects of observing the model and
does not show that the behaviour was learned and then shown again in the future; The theory also cannot explain the children that did not imitate the model.  It
appears that the theory may have stronger explanatory power than predictive power for an individual's behaviour.
Joy et al. (1986) carried out a prospective natural experiment on the effects of television on the level of aggression of children. Children in a remote part of
Canada were tested and observed on their levels of aggression one year prior to the introduction of television and a year after. The study found that the children
were more aggressive a year after they gained access to TV.  A similar study was carried out on the island of St. Helena by Charlton et al. (2002). In contrast,
the 2002 study did not find any change in aggression. Following an examination of both studies some major differences can be found in the two studies. Firstly,
children in St. Helena were more likely to watch TV with their parents, so it may be presumed that they were not as easily exposed to violent television.
Secondly, the majority of St. Helena is black, while the majority of western television features white actors. Therefore, in accordance to the social cognitive
theory the children in St.Helena would be viewing the behaviour of an out-group, making them less likely to replicate the behaviour than Canadian children
observing the behaviour of their white in-group. This is because they do not identify with the group and therefore may not feel the sense of self-efficacy in
being able to replicate the behaviour. Both studies were natural experiments and have high ecological validity since in both cases the children were observed on
the playground in their regular environment. A limitation found in both studies is that aggression on the playground is difficult to quantify and it is possible that
there may have been some level of researcher bias.
There are several strengths of the theory.  First, there is empirical evidence to support it.  The theory has been shown to have validity both in the lab (Bandura)
and in natural environments (Joy and Charlton). The theory also can be applied to a large range of behaviours, not just aggression. It has been used in education
as well as in therapy. Finally, the theory is complex and explains cultural differences in behaviour. It also shows how we may learn without having to directly
receive a reward or punishment. There are, however, limitations of the theory.  First, the theory is only one perspective.  It does not account for biological
factors in aggression.  How biology influences SCT could be a factor.  Secondly, the studies of aggression have ethical concerns. Finally, the theory cannot
explain all behaviour as some children did not imitate the model in spite of meeting the criteria of the theory.
Overall, it can be concluded that despite its limitations the social cognitive theory is supported by research and can help contribute to our understanding of
human behaviours.
1043 words
Focus on the question: The response is clearly focused on the question.  The introduction clearly identifies the issue to be discussed and puts it into the context
of aggression research. 2 marks.
Knowledge and understanding: There is good knowledge of the theory demonstrated.  Psychological terminology is used effectively. 6 marks.
Use of research:  Three studies are used effectively.  There is some lack of clarity of the Bandura study.  Would have been better to choose two studies and pay
more attention to the details of Bandura's study.  5 marks.
Critical thinking:  Both strengths and limitations are explained. Ideas are fairly well developed and linked to the demands of the question - that is, not only the
research but the theory is directly evaluated.  5 marks.
Clarity and organization: The essay is well structured and clearly written. 2 marks
Total: 20 marks
Predicted: 7

Sample 3
Social cognitive theory states that humans can learn by watching and imitating someone else’s behaviour. It occurs if the person has high self-efficacy, which
means they believe that they are able to succeed in the task. Social cognitive theory can be used to explain aggression in children.
A longitudinal study done by Huesmann on social-cognitive theory looked at the relationship between watching violent TV at a young age and adult aggression.
The researchers gathered data on children of ages 6-10 that were exposed to aggressive TV characters and violent movie sequences. The researchers gathered
correlational data on the children later in life when they were 20-25 years old. Over half of the original participants attended. The results show that childhood
exposure to TV violence predicted aggressive behaviour in their adulthood. The researchers also observed aggression of different genders of the participants.
They found that male participants showed more physical aggression, whereas women showed more social or indirect aggression. This study can show some
correlation between exposure of violent TV and later aggression in adulthood. A strength of the study is that it showed change over time; it also had a large
sample size.  One limitation of this study is that other variables such as social status, education level or in what environment the children grew up in can have
an effect on the final results. Even though these variables were taken into account, they were not connected with the final results.
Another study on the correlation between TV viewing and adult aggression was done by Johnson.  They interviewed a group of 14 - 22 year olds and their
mothers about their aggressive behaviour. The results show that participants who watched 1-3 hours of TV per day were more likely to commit a crime than
those who watched less than 1 hour a day. Unlike the previous study, this study quantified the number of hours the participants spent watching TV. One
limitation this study can have is social desirability effect with the interviews, especially the interviews with their mothers as they will not want to come off as
bad mothers who let their children watch too much TV.  There is no way to verify that the estimates of television time are accurate. Another limitation can be
that the researchers did not specify the content that was showed on the TV, so we don’t really know if it is the violence on TV that makes the children violent
later in life, or if it is simply exposure to the media itself.
Since there are so many studies done on aggression in social cognitive learning theory, we can understand that the theory is testable and has a high heuristic
theory as it can be applied to multiple situations. This theory can predict behaviour but not explain it. The problem with self-efficacy is that it cannot be
measured. The theory is not focused on one culture or gender, so it is holistic.
The Social cognitive theory has both strengths and limitations. It can predict behaviour and has high heuristic validity, but at the same time it cannot explain
behaviour and has low ecological validity.
520 words
Focus on the question: There is an attempt to focus on the question, but this is not sustained. Focus is mainly on studies. 1 mark.
Knowledge and understanding:  There is some knowledge demonstrated.  The theory is not clearly explained; there is only a very basic understanding,
lacking detail and development. Psychology terminology is not used with great precision and there are errors in some of the conclusions made about the
studies.  3 marks.
Use of research:  Two studies are used to some effect.  Links to the social cognitive theory are not highly explicit.  3 marks.
Critical thinking: There is an attempt to evaluate both the research and the study, but both needed to be better developed and more accurate.  3 marks.
Clarity and organization:  There is a sense of structure.  Language communicates effectively.  2 marks.
Total: 12 marks
Predicted: 5
ERQ sample: Cultural dimensions
The following essay sample is a response to the question: 

Evaluate research on one cultural dimension.

The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks.
The essay could also be used as a response to the question: Evaluate research on the effect of culture on behaviour.

What is the question asking for?

 Identify and describe one cultural dimension.
 Describe at least two studies that look at the effect of the dimension on behaviour.  The two studies do not need to be about the same
behaviour.
 Outline both strengths and limitations of each study.
 Discuss research on cultural dimensions in a more general manner.

Sample response
Hofstede carried out a study in the 1970’s to determine if there are cultural trends with regard to values and how members of a culture interact with one
another.  He carried out a series of questionnaires at an international company and then a content analysis of the replies.  He proposed a set of cultural
dimensions to help discuss culture.  One such dimension is individualism and collectivism (I-C).  Individualistic cultures focus on uniqueness, individual
achievement, freedom and self-actualization.  Collectivistic cultures focus on social harmony, interdependence, modesty and group memberships. There are
several studies that look at how cultural dimensions may affect the behaviour of members of that culture, but there are questions about the validity of the
research.
One influence of I-C on cultures is the level of conformity. Berry investigated the difference in likeliness to conform between the Temne (a farming culture)
and Inuits (a hunting culture). All members of the culture were living in the West during the experiment.  Each participant was tested alone.  They were shown
a series of lines and asked to pick the line that most closely matched another line.  Directions were given in their native language. On the third trial, the
participant was told, “Most Temne (or Inuit) believe that line 4 matches the line below.  What do you think?” This continued for the rest of the trials, with some
of the responses being correct and some incorrect.
Berry found that the Temne were more likely to conform to the incorrect answer than the Inuits. He argued that this is because farming communities need to be
more reliant on one another than hunting communities, which are more independent.
The study is highly standardized so it is replicable, allowing researchers to test the reliability of the findings. However, the research is also rather old, so it may
no longer get the same results today.  Another strength was that the study was done in the native language of the participants, avoiding a confounding variable.
A limitation of the study is that the procedure is highly artificial, so it lacks ecological validity. It is difficult to know if the participants would conform if the
task was more meaningful.
I-C can also influence cognition, such as memory.  Kulkoffsky carried out a study to see if there were differences in the level of flashbulb memories in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures.  The sample was made up of about 250 participants from five different cultures. First, the participants were asked to
recall as memories of big news events in their lifetime. They were then given a questionnaire that asked them questions about what they were doing on the day
of that event. They were also asked how important the even was to them personally and how important it was to their country. The survey was conducted in
their native languages.
The results showed that Chinese participants (collectivistic) had fewer flashbulb memories than Americans (individualistic).  In collectivistic cultures, it is not
culturally appropriate to focus on the individual's own experiences and emotions.  This may mean that there would be less rehearsal of the memory of the event
compared with participants from other cultures - and so fewer FBMs. However, it was found that if the event was of national importance, there was no
significant difference in the level of FBMs
Unlike Berry’s experiment, this study has high ecological validity.  However, it makes an assumption that just because the participants say that they remember
where they were and what they were doing during the event, that their memories are in fact accurate. By using their own language, this may help the
participants retrieve memories and avoids a confounding variable in the interpretation of the questionnaire.
There are some general concerns about research on cultural dimensions. First, the research is etic in nature – that is, it makes an attempt to compare cultures.
The test that Berry is using is based on the Asch paradigm, a Western test. This assumes that conformity is the same across all cultures and can be tested in this
way.  Kulkoffsky also makes an assumption that flashbulb memories can be tested by using Brown & Kulik’s standardized interview questions.  Another
concern is that such research may lead us to make the ecological fallacy; just because the participants come from the same culture, this does not mean that they
necessarily share the traits of the culture's dimensions. There is a danger of stereotyping.  In addition, the study by Berry used a sample that was living in the
UK.  This may not be representative of modern day Temne and Inuits.
In conclusion, collectivism/individualism have a strong influence on the the likelihood of creating flashbulb memories. Although research seems support that
there are cultural differences that reflect a culture’s dimensions, it is important to consider the limitations of the research.
739 words

Marking the response

Focus on the question
The response is focused on the question.  The introduction clearly introduces the concept of cultural dimensions and then identifies the
issue that will be the focus - validity of the research.
Knowledge and understanding
The cultural dimension is clearly understood.  In addition, methodology is also clear explained and psychological terminology is used
effectively.  Key terms are defined and explained.
Use of research
Two studies are used that effectively demonstrate the effect of I-C on behaviour (conformity and memory). The studies are clearly
outlined in terms of their method and findings.
Critical thinking
The response has used a systematic approach, starting always with strengths and then looking at limitations of the studies.  The final
paragraphs look more generally at the concerns about the validity of research on cultural dimensions.
Clarity and organization
The response is well organized and the language used communicates effectively.

What are common problems with this question?

 The cultural dimension is identified, but not described in any detail.
 Several cultural dimensions are described.  This loses focus on the question and weakens the organization of the response.
 The studies are not directly linked to the dimension or are not described in enough detail.
 There are only limitations of the research; strengths are not discussed.  Results are not strengths.  Often students write that a strength
of the study was that the hypothesis was supported.
 There is no evaluation of research on cultural dimensions in general and the response is too focused solely on two or three studies.
ERQ sample: Enculturation
The following sample is a response to the question: 

Discuss the enculturation of one behaviour. 

Discuss asks students to consider a range of arguments. Students may show how social cognitive theory, direct tuition or social identity may play a role in
enculturation.
The sample response is an example of an exemplary response that should receive top marks. Comments about the essay are included below.
The highlighted areas of the essay demonstrate critical thinking.

Sample essay
Essay content Marker's comment

The introduction clearly

Enculturation is the process of adopting or internalizing the behaviours and values of one’s culture - a process also identifies the problem to be
known as socialization. Enculturation results in the development of cultural schema. One behaviour which is discussed in this essay. 
enculturated is gender roles.  There are several theories of how enculturation takes place.  One theory is that we learn
through direct tuition. This is supported by a naturalistic observation carried out by Fagot (1978) and Wood (2002).
The term "enculturation" is
Another explanation is that Social Cognitive theory - or observational learning - plays a key role, as shown in a study clearly defined and the plan
done by Williams (1986). It is most likely, however, to be a combination of factors that leads to enculturation. for the argument is clearly
explained.

Enculturation may be the result of direct tuition in which children are rewarded for "gender appropriate" behaviour and The study is described in
punished for "gender inappropriate" behaviour.  Fagot studied parent-child interactions through naturalistic observations adequate detail and the
carried out in the homes of the families. The goal of this study was to observe the parents' reaction when children’s
results are clearly linked to
behaviour was (or was not) “gender appropriate." The researchers used a checklist of behaviours that were determined to
be gender inappropriate/appropriate to standardize the observation process. The researchers found that parents rewarded the question of
their children performing gender consistent activities; they also discouraged or gave negative feedback to behaviour that enculturation.  There is
did not fit into gender norms. Since this was a naturalistic observation, it has high ecological validity.  The researchers good evidence of critical
did not manipulate any variables and the environment in which it took place was familiar to the family.  The study most
likely predicts how the family behaves on a day to day basis. However, as a result, the study has low internal validity. 
There are no controls over the study and since no IV was manipulated, no cause and effect relationship can be
determined. In addition, since the observation was overt,  the participants knew they were being observed. This could thinking with regard to
have resulted in demand characteristics where the parents behaved differently because they knew they were being the validity of the study.
watched; however, the parents did not know that the observers were recording gender-related activity. However, there
was a risk of researcher bias, as the researchers could have paid more attention to behaviours that confirmed their own
hypothesis.

A study done by Williams in 1986 found that children may learn their gender roles as a result of observational learning -
that is, by watching television.  The researchers carried out a natural experiment; they did not manipulate an independent
variable.  In this case, television was made available to a remote region of Canada. The researchers assessed children’s
gender stereotyping just before television was introduced and then repeated this assessment two years later. They found
The study is clearly
that children had developed more traditional thinking about gender roles. It appears that the children may have learned described and the
their gender roles by watching the behaviour of the people on television. The study was a natural experiment, so it had evaluated. The evaluation
high ecological validity. The researcher was simply measuring an effect that was naturally occurring. However, the points are clearly unpacked
study also had low internal validity.  As there were no controls during the two year period, confounding variables could and explicitly linked to the
have affected children’s stereotyping, rather than just television. For example, peer groups or adults in their lives may study. A range of critical
have played a role. In other words, we cannot rule out that direct tuition also played a role in their enculturation into
Canadian culture.  Finally, it is unclear how many hours the children actually watched television and what they watched.
thinking strategies is used.
Although there was self-reported data, this may have not represented the child's actual behaviour and may have been
subject to demand characteristics.

Studying how we are enculturated has many challenges. First, when looking at studies like Fagot's, we observe the
parents behaviour, but not the children's actual development of gender roles.  The development of gender roles is then
A good discussion which
assumed to be related to this behaviour.  Woods' study in 2000 found similar findings with regard to parent toy-choice takes a more holistic look
when playing with children, regardless if they were the parents or not.  Cross-sectional studies do not tell us about the at the study of
long-term effects of parents and television on actual gender role development.  Longitudinal studies may show this but enculturation.  Challenges
lack internal validity and cannot isolate variables. Another challenge is to overcome bias in investigating the question. are identified and in some
Researcher triangulation should be used so that researchers can compare their observations and establish the reliability cases, alternatives are
of their data, controlling for bias.  Lastly, enculturation is only one possible explanation of gender role development. 
Biological factors, for example, may also play a role.
suggested.

In conclusion, enculturation is the process of learning the behaviours of our own culture.  This may be done directly, The
through gatekeepers like our parents - or indirectly, by observational learning. Enculturation research is problematic as it conclusions summarizes th
is difficult to measure one's level of enculturation and controlled studies lack ecological validity.  Naturalistic studies
 e argument and then
lack external validity.  But by putting the different research together, psychologists attempt to get a bigger understanding addresses the question of
of the process. how much can we know
about enculturation.

Words: 812
ERQ Sample: SCT
The following sample is a response to the question: 

Evaluate the Social Cognitive Theory.

The sample below is a strong sample which should earn in the top markbands.  As we still do not have any sample marking from the IB, there are no "official
marks" on this sample.  It does, however, meet all the requirements as per the rubric.
What is the question asking for?

 An explanation of the theory so that it can be linked to the studies.

 At least two pieces of research that are then evaluated.
 The command term "evaluate" requires that students write about both strengths and limitations of the theory.

Sample response
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) can be applied to the study of human aggression. SCT argues that humans are able to learn through observation. For this to take
place, several cognitive factors are necessary. First, learners must be attentive to a model. Attention can be influenced by the authority, desirability and
attractiveness of the model. Second, the learner must be able to retain what he observes. Additionally, learners must be motivated enough to replicate the
behaviour. The motivation is the result of the awards that the model receives - what Bandura called vicarious reinforcement.  Finally, they must be able to
comprehend the result of the behaviour and be able to identify with the model. It is not enough that they identify with the model, they must also feel that they
are able to carry out the behaviour - what is known as self-efficacy.  SCT was developed by Albert Bandura whose research on aggression gave some of the
first empirical evidence supporting the notion that humans could learn through observation. Since then, much research has been done to support the theory. Two
studies that support SCT are Bandura et al  on aggression in children and Joy, Kimball and Zabrack on the effect of TV on aggression in children.
Bandura carried out a lab experiment to see if children would imitate aggression modelled by adults. The first independent variable used was the modelled act
of aggression which was standardised to include both verbal and physical acts on a Bobo doll. The second and third independent variables were the sex of the
child and the sex of the model respectively. The dependent variable was the frequency of aggression actions, both verbal and physical, observed by the
researchers. Thirty-six boys and thirty-six girls, aged between three and six years participated in the study. The groups were matched for aggression. Children
were either placed in a control group which did not see a model, played alongside a passive model, or witnessed an aggressive model. Children were allocated
to either a female or male model. In the passive condition, the model played with blocks.  In the aggressive condition, the model was verbally and physically
aggressive to the Bobo doll.
All children were then exposed to ‘mild aggression arousal’ by being taken to a room with toys; once they began to play were told that the toys were for other
children. The researchers then observed the children’s response and looked for acts of aggression towards the Bobo doll. The researchers found that participants
from the passive-model control showed fewer aggressive behaviours than those in the aggressive-model conditions. Second, boys made more aggressive acts
than girls. Third, boys made more physical acts of aggression whereas girls made the most verbal acts.  Finally, both boys and girls who had a male model
made more aggressive acts than children that observed a female one.
Bandura et al is an important study used to back up SCT because it demonstrates how humans learn from observation and then replicate it. It also shows that the
children did not identify with the aggressive female model as much as the male model. Since it is an experiment, it can be replicated to determine its reliability.
However, the study suffers from low ecological validity and can be criticized for being highly controlled and artificial. One example of this is the use of Bobo
dolls in the experiment. Physical and verbal aggression towards inanimate objects may not be able to be equated with aggression towards humans. Further
research would be required to determine whether children would imitate physical and verbal acts of aggression against other people in the same way they did in
the study against the Bobo dolls. The ethics of the study are also questionable as it was not clear whether this learned behaviour would continue after the
experiment.
In Joy, Kimball and Zabrack researchers performed a prospective natural experiment investigating whether the introduction of television in a northern
Canadian town would affect the aggression of children. The study found a significant increase in verbal and physical acts of aggression in the children. The
SCT can explain the results of the study by suggesting that the children identified with the characters in the shows and imitated their behaviour. However, this
may not have been the case. As the study is not highly controlled, it is possible that other variables could have played a role in the change of behaviour.
Unlike Bandura et al, this study has high ecological validity in that it was a natural experiment. Using the two studies together is effective because they both
support SCT while making up for limitations that exist in each.
SCT is an important theory in the sociocultural approach because of its high heuristic validity and its explanatory power. As Bandura et al indicates, the theory
can be used to explain aggression. It can also be applied to change behaviours – such as exercise, eating habits and attitudes toward domestic violence. The
theory is testable, with many studies having been done to support it. This has led to a large amount of empirical evidence which gives SCT credibility.  The
theory assumes that attention, retention and identification - as well as self-efficacy- are important in learning, but these variables are difficult to measure in a
natural setting. In addition, it is also difficult to measure learning as there is often a time gap between observing a behaviour and actually imitating it.  When a
person does not display a behaviour, that does not necessarily mean they have not learned it.
In conclusion, research done on Social Cognitive Theory appears to explain aggressive behaviour in children.  The theory has been successfully tested in both
controlled and naturalistic conditions.  The wide range of applications shows that the theory is very useful; however, it is a complex theory and it is not clear
that all of the factors that Bandura described can be easily measured.
980 words
What are common problems with this question?

 The focus of the response is not addressed - in this case, the focus was on how SCT can be used to explain aggression.
 The response only discusses strengths or limitations - both strengths and limitations are required.
 The response only evaluates the supporting research, but not the theory itself.