181004
Psychology
2019 v1.3
IA3 high
-level annotated sample response
August
2018
Research investigation (20%)
This sample has been compiled by the QCAA to assist and support
teachers to match evidence
in student responses to the characteristics described in the instrument
-specific marking guide
(ISMG).
Assessment objectives
This assessment instrument is used to determine student achievement in the following
objectives:
2.
apply understanding of social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-
cultural psychology to develop research questions
3.
analyse research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or
cross-cultural psychology
4.
interpret research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or
cross-cultural psychology
5.
investigate phenomena associated with social psychology, interpersonal processes,
attitudes or cross-cultural psychology through research
6
. evaluate research processes, claims and conclusions about social psychology,
interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology
7.
communicate understandings and research findings, arguments and conclusions about
social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology.
Note:
Objective 1 is not assessed in this instrument.
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 2 of 11
Instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG)
Criterion: Research and planning
Assessment objectives
2. apply understanding of social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural
psychology to develop research questions
5. investigate phenomena associated with social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes
or cross-cultural psychology through research
The student work has the following characteristics: Marks
• informed application of understanding of social psychology, interpersonal processes,
attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by a considered rationale identifying
clear development of the research question from the claim
• effective and efficient investigation of phenomena associated with social psychology,
interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by
- a specific and relevant research question
-
selection of sufficient and relevant sources.
5–6
• adequate application of understanding of social psychology, interpersonal processes,
attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by a reasonable rationale that links the
research question and the claim
• effective investigation of phenomena associated with social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by
- a relevant research question
-
selection of relevant sources.
3–4
• rudimentary application of understanding of social psychology, interpersonal processes,
attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by a vague or irrelevant rationale for
the investigation
• ineffective investigation of phenomena associated with social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by
- an inappropriate research question
-
selection of insufficient and irrelevant sources.
1–2
•
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.
0
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 3 of 11
Criterion: Analysis and interpretation
Assessment objectives
3. analyse research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or
cross-cultural psychology
4. interpret research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or
cross-cultural psychology
The student work has the following characteristics:
Marks
• systematic and effective analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the
sources about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural
psychology demonstrated by
- the identification of sufficient and relevant evidence
- thorough identification of relevant trends, patterns or relationships
- thorough and appropriate identification of limitations of evidence
• insightful interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by justified scientific
argument/s.
5–6
• effective analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the sources about social
psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology
demonstrated by
- the identification of relevant evidence
- identification of obvious trends, patterns or relationships
- basic identification of limitations of evidence
• adequate interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by reasonable scientific
argument/s.
3–4
• rudimentary analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the sources about
social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology
demonstrated by
- the identification of insufficient and irrelevant evidence
- identification of incorrect or irrelevant trends, patterns or relationships
- incorrect or insufficient identification of limitations of evidence
• invalid interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by inappropriate or
irrelevant argument/s.
1–2
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.
0
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 4 of 11
Criterion: Conclusion and evaluation
Assessment objectives
4. interpret research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or
cross-cultural psychology
6. evaluate research processes, claims and conclusions about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology
The student work has the following characteristics:
Marks
• insightful interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by justified conclusion/s
linked to the research question
• critical evaluation of the research processes, claims and conclusions about social
psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated
by
- insightful discussion of the quality of evidence
- extrapolation of credible findings of the research to the claim
- suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation, that are considered and
relevant to the claim.
5–6
• adequate interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by reasonable conclusion/s
relevant to the research question
• basic evaluation of the research processes, claims and conclusions about social
psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated
by
- reasonable description of the quality of evidence
- application of relevant findings of the research to the claim
- suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation, that are relevant to the
claim.
3–4
• invalid interpretation of research evidence about social psychology, interpersonal
processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated by inappropriate or
irrelevant conclusion/s
• superficial evaluation of the research processes, claims and conclusions about social
psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology demonstrated
by
- cursory or simplistic statements about the quality of evidence
- application of insufficient or inappropriate findings of the research to the claim
-
ineffective or irrelevant suggestions.
1–2
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.
0
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 5 of 11
Criterion: Communication
Assessment objective
7. communicate understandings and research findings, arguments and conclusions about social
psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural psychology
Marks
• effective communication of understandings and research findings, arguments and
conclusions about social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural
psychology demonstrated by
- fluent and concise use of scientific language and representations
- appropriate use of genre conventions
- acknowledgment of sources of information through appropriate use of
referencing conventions.
2
• adequate communication of understandings and research findings, arguments and
conclusions social psychology, interpersonal processes, attitudes or cross-cultural
psychology demonstrated by
- competent use of scientific language and representations
- use of basic genre conventions
use of basic referencing conventions.
1
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above.
0
Task
Context
Investigate one of the following claims:
• Gender is a social construct.
• Social media is changing the nature of relationships.
• Violent media causes violent behaviour.
You may identify an alternative claim in consultation with your teacher. This claim must be related to
Unit 4 subject matter.
Task
Gather secondary evidence related to a research question in order to evaluate the claim. Develop your
research question based on a number of possible claims provided by your teacher.
Obtain evidence by researching scientifically credible sources, such as scientific journals, books by well-
credentialed scientists, and websites of governments, universities, independent research bodies or
science and technology manufacturers. You must adhere to research conventions.
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 6 of 11
Sample response
Criterion Marks allocated Result
Research and planning
Assessment objectives 2, 5
6 5
Analysis and interpretation
Assessment objectives 3, 4
6 6
Conclusion and evaluation
Assessment objectives 4, 6
6 6
Communication
Assessment objective 7
2 2
Total
20
19
The annotations show the match to the instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG) performance-
level descriptors.
Key:
Research and
planning
Analysis
and
interpretation
Conclusion and
evaluation
Communication
Note:
Colour shadings show the characteristics evident in the response for each criterion.
Research and
planning [5–6]
a considered rationale
identifying clear
development of the
research question
from the claim
The rationale shows
evidence of careful,
deliberate thought. The
sequence of ideas
involved in the
development of the
research question from
the claim is easily seen.
Communication [2]
acknowledgment of
sources of information
through appropriate
use of referencing
conventions
The use of in-text
referencing fits the
purpose of an essay.
Claim: Violent media causes violent behaviour.
Rationale:
Violent media is often blamed after senseless mass shootings. A recent
report about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the USA,
highlighted that the perpetrator played both violent and non-violent video
games (Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting 2017, March 11). This is
not the first instance where violent media have been said to be the cause
of violent behaviour.
Violence is defined as rough or injurious action (Macquarie 2017),
and is usually observed in response to a perceived injustice, insult, or
wrongdoing on behalf of the perpetrator. Violence is often portrayed as an
extreme type of aggression. In psychology, aggression is defined as the
emotional drive to attack, or an offensive mental attitude (Macquarie
2017). For the purpose of this investigation, the term aggression will
include aggressive behaviour, thoughts, feelings, and anger. As
aggressive behaviour is difficult to study in laboratory settings, due to
ethical restraints, psychologists often study different types of aggression
(e.g. thoughts and feelings) and extrapolate the findings in order to explain
aggressive acts in the real world. In order to do this, researchers must
ensure that the conditions of the experiment mimic elements of the real
world closely.
Violent media can include movies, news items, cartoons and video games.
To narrow the focus of this investigation, and to address the debate that
ensued after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, video games
will be the type of media investigated. The term video game covers a
broad range of products that can be played on a range of devices,
including arcade machines to computers, home consoles, and mobile
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 7 of 11
Research and
planning [3–4]
a relevant research
question
The research question
is developed from the
claim and connected to
the topics covered in the
unit. However, it is not
clearly defined.
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
identification of
sufficient and relevant
evidence
The evidence in the
response draws upon
the available qualitative
and quantitative data to
respond to the research
question. It links directly
to the research
question.
devices. This investigation will focus primarily on console based games.
In order to classify video games as violent, they must depict intentional
attempts by individuals (including non-human cartoon characters) to inflict
harm on others (Bushman and Anderson 2002). There is currently no
agreed international classification of violence for video games (e.g. 18+).
Research question:
As such, this investigation proposes the following research question:
Do violent video games cause aggression?
Evidence:
Professor Craig Anderson has spent his career investigating the
relationship between violent video games (VVGs) and aggression.
In 2002, he and a colleague Brad Bushman aimed to investigate the
relationship between exposure to VVGs, and aggression. To do this,
participants were randomly assigned to play a violent or a non-violent
video game, and then asked to complete three ambiguous story stems
related to the main character in the game, which ended with the question,
“What happens next?” Participants then indicated what the main character
would do, say, think or feel (Bushman and Anderson 2002).
Figure 1. Mean differences in responses between violent and nonviolent
video game play (Bushman and Anderson 2002).
As shown in Figure 1 there were differences in mean aggression
responses between participants who played the nonviolent and violent
video games, with those who played the violent video game, having higher
aggressive responses on average. To further analyse their data,
researchers used inferential statistics and found statistically significant
results for two categories. Participants who play violent video games were
more likely to predict that the main characters will behave (do/say)
aggressively (p < .005), and feel angry and aggressive (p < .02). However,
this affect was not observed for aggressive thoughts and ideas (p < .06),
where a non-significant result was found.
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 8 of 11
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough and
appropriate
identification of
limitations of evidence
The response identifies
limitations of evidence
that affect how well it
can be used to develop
a response to the
research question.
justified scientific
argument/s
The interpretation of the
evidence shows an
understanding of the
process used to select
evidence to construct a
scientific argument. The
scientific argument
communicates sound
reasoning and draws
upon valid and reliable
evidence.
Conclusion and
evaluation [5–6]
justified conclusion/s
linked to the research
question
The response uses
sound reasoning and
valid and reliable
evidence to support
conclusions that directly
respond to the research
question.
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough identification
of relevant trends,
patterns or
relationships
The response identifies
relationships in a way
that is not superficial or
partial. Identified
relationships are
applicable and directly
connected to the
formation of the
scientific argument.
A limitation of this evidence is that participants in the study were not pre-
tested on individual characteristics (such as, baseline aggression) that
may have confounded the results of the experiment. Random allocation
was undertaken to game play condition which may have controlled for this
somewhat, but not fully.
A further limitation was that participants were asked to complete story
stems, and their answers were deemed to be a measure of aggression
caused by the video game play. Due to the use of an unrealistic self-report
method, this experiment lacked ecological validity. It would be difficult for
researchers to generalise their findings to real world contexts based on
their methodology.
Although the research recorded a statistically significant result for
aggressive feelings, the same cannot be said for aggressive thoughts.
This may be due to the limitations stated above. As such it is inconclusive
as to whether violent video games cause an increase in aggression.
Further research into violent video games was conducted by Unsworth,
Devilly and Ward (2007). They sought to investigate whether playing
violent video games led to increased anger. Anger is defined as a strongly
felt displeasure aroused by real or supposed wrongs (Macquarie 2017).
For the purposes of this investigation, anger is seen as an expression of
aggression. Researchers asked adolescents to play a violent video game
(Quake II) and took measurements of anger both before, during and after
game play. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of differences in anger between participants at pre- and
post-game-play.
Difference in
state anger
between pre-
and post- game
play
Increase
(N = 22)
Decrease
(N = 8)
No change
(N = 77)
Mean (
̅
)
11.54 -8.75 0.53
Standard
Deviation (s)
5.96 3.06 1.64
NB: Results in Table 1 have been adapted from the results section in the
paper by Unsworth, Devilly and Ward (2007).
The results show that the majority of participants experienced no change
(̅ = 0.53, s = 1.64) in anger after playing a violent game. The no change
group also had the lowest standard deviation suggesting little variability
between participant responses in this group. To further analyse their data,
researchers used correlational analysis. The results determined a
correlation coefficient from .00 to -.14. This result shows a low to no
correlation between the two variables, as it obtained a correlation
coefficient below r = .1.
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 9 of 11
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough and
appropriate
identification of
limitations of evidence
The response identifies
limitations of evidence
that affect how well it
can be used to develop
a response to the
research question.
Conclusion and
evaluation [5–6]
justified conclusion/s
linked to the research
question
The response uses
sound reasoning and
valid and reliable
evidence to support
conclusions that directly
respond to the research
question.
Communication [2]
appropriate use of
genre conventions
In presenting data, the
response follows
conventions of table
construction that fit the
purpose of an essay.
Limitations of this study are that the researchers only used one type of
violent video game (Quake II), limiting the conclusions that can be drawn
due to not having a control for comparison. The game play only lasted for
20 mins, and was conducted in a laboratory setting, which would have
further reduced the ecological validity of the study. Lastly, the use of a
correlational research method only shows whether two variables are
associated, and as such causal conclusions cannot be drawn from the
findings of this study as researchers cannot rule out alternative variables
or explanations, such as individual differences in anger, and situational
variables that may have affected the results.
Thus, due to the low to no correlation observed, it could be concluded
from the evidence presented in this study that violent video games do not
cause an increase in aggression. However, the use of a correlational
research method, and the limitations stated above, limit the certainty of
these findings.
Lastly, Ferguson and Rueda (2010) sought to investigate the relationship
between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Participants were
initially given a frustration task and then randomly assigned to either the
no, nonviolent, or violent game (antisocial violent, prosocial violent)
conditions. Following the game play, participants completed
questionnaires measuring trait aggression and hostile (aggressive)
feelings, and a task that measured the intensity and duration of a noise
blast given to an opponent (said to be a degree of aggressive behaviour).
The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Group means for video game groups.
Condition Aggressive
behaviour
Hitman (antisocial violent)
6.03 (1.95)
Call of duty 2 (prosocial
violent)
6.02 (2.05)
Madden 07 (nonviolent) 5.89 (2.03)
No-game control 6.52 (2.24)
NB: Results in Table 2 have been adapted from the results section in the
paper by Ferguson and Rueda (2010).
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
The results in Table 2 show that there was very little difference observed
between group means for aggressive behaviour. To further analyse their
data, researchers used inferential statistical analysis. The results indicated
no difference between type of game play and aggressive behaviour,
(p > .05), and hostile feelings (p > .05).
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 10 of 11
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough and
appropriate
identification of
limitations of evidence
The response identifies
limitations of the
evidence that are not
superficial or partial.
The limitations are
suitable for determining
the reliability of the
evidence in responding
to the research
question.
justified scientific
argument/s
The interpretation of the
evidence shows an
understanding of the
process used to select
evidence to construct a
scientific argument. The
scientific argument
communicates sound
reasoning and draws
upon valid and reliable
evidence.
Conclusion and
evaluation [5–6]
justified conclusion/s
linked to the research
question
Throughout the
response, the response
uses sound reasoning
and valid and reliable
evidence to support
conclusions that directly
respond to the research
question.
insightful discussion
of the quality of
evidence
The discussion
communicates
understanding of the
features of the evidence
that affect how well it
can be used to respond
to the research
question.
A limitation of the study was that the sample comprised of primarily
university students with a Hispanic ethnicity. Thus, care must be taken in
generalising these results beyond this participant group. A strength of the
methodology was that aggression was measured at pre-game play, with
participants randomly allocated based on this characteristic, limiting it as a
confounding variable. However, as the study was conducted in a
laboratory, using a noise blast to represent aggressive behaviour, and
self-report techniques to assess hostile feelings, the research lacks
ecological validity. This is because in both instances they are artificial
measures that are extrapolated to thoughts and feelings in the real world.
Low ecological validity limits the ability to generalise the results to settings
outside the research itself.
Since the result of this study was not statistically significant, it can be
concluded that playing violent video games does not cause an increase in
aggression. Evidence from the no-game control group (highest measured
aggression score) further suggests that there could be an additional,
unmeasured (confounding) variable that may be the cause of aggression.
However, due to the limitations of the methodology, it is difficult to
generalise these results with certainty.
Conclusion:
The research evidence from Bushman and Anderson (2002), contradicts
that from Unsworth, Devilly and Ward (2007) and Ferguson and Rueda
(2010). These researchers found a low to no correlation and a non-
significant effect between playing violent video games and an increase in
aggression. Additionally, Bushman and Anderson (2002) had a mixed
statistical result with a significant effect observed for behave aggressively
and feel angry and aggressive and a non-significant result for aggressive
thoughts and ideas. The findings from all three researchers suggest that
further investigation is needed into the effect of violent video games and
behaviour before a conclusion can be drawn with confidence.
However, the research evidence presented in this essay suggests that
playing violent video games does not cause an increase in aggression in
comparison to nonviolent video games in users.
Evaluation:
In order to determine the quality of the evidence, the appropriateness of
the method used, the rigour employed when controlling the variables, and
the parameters under which the data was intended to be applied, will be
discussed. Improvements and extensions to the research will also be
suggested.
Firstly, the methodologies used by researchers to measure aggression
were flawed, as in most instances they were highly artificial (e.g. noise
blast as a measure of aggressive behaviour) and/or used self-report
measures (e.g. questionnaires). Artificial measures lead to a decrease in
ecological validity, and self-report measures are criticised within
psychology as they are open to participant bias. As such, an improvement
would be to use supporting measures such as teacher, peer, and/or
parent ratings, or neuroimaging of brain functionality, to improve the
ecological validity and add credibility to the research findings. These
improvements would allow researchers greater confidence to extrapolate
their findings to serious acts of aggression or violence, like seen in the
Sandy Hook shooting.
Psychology 2019 v1.3
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
August 2018
Page 11 of 11
Conclusion and
evaluation [5–6]
suggested
improvements and
extensions to the
investigation that are
considered and
relevant to the claim
The response uses the
analysis of the
investigation’s
limitations to inform
suggested
improvements and
extensions that are
connected to the claim.
extrapolation of
credible findings of
the research to the
claim
The response identifies
believable outcomes of
the research and then
applies them to the
claim.
Communication [2]
fluent and concise use
of scientific language
and representations
The response is easily
understood, avoids
unnecessary repetition
and meets the required
length.
Research and
planning [5–6]
selection of sufficient
and relevant sources
Sources are related to
the topics covered in the
unit and are adequate
for the development of a
scientific argument that
responds to the
research question.
Communication [2]
acknowledgment of
sources of information
through appropriate
use of referencing
conventions
The use of a referencing
system fits the purpose
of an essay.
Secondly, the methodologies used by researchers did not screen for, and
as such did not control, possible confounding participant variables (e.g.,
behaviour disorders and/or aggressive personality traits). Only Ferguson
and Rueda (2010) attempted to control for natural participant variation in
aggressive tendencies by having a pre-test, but their sample was
unrepresentative as it contained primarily university students with a
Hispanic ethnicity. An improvement would be to pre-screen participants for
disorders known to enhance aggressive tendencies, use a stratified-
random sampling technique, and a matched-participants design to limit
confounding participant variables. These improvements would increase
the population validity and credibility of the conclusions made about video
games and their influence on aggression.
Lastly, extrapolating the results of the research to long term gamers (like
the Sandy Hook perpetrator) is limited as researchers only looked at the
short term effects (e.g. maximum game play was 45 minutes) of playing
violent video games on aggression. As such, the research above cannot
establish whether repeated, long term exposure has an effect on
aggression. An extension to the research, would be to conduct follow-up
or longitudinal research studies where participants are assessed on
various measures of aggression over a period of time (i.e. 5 years or
more). To do this, researchers could use measures such as forensic
history, academic records, and/or history of self-injurious behaviour. This
extension would allow researchers to draw conclusions about the long
term effects of violent video games on aggression.
The evidence obtained in this investigation concludes that playing violent
video games does not cause an increase in aggression in users, and as
such does not provide support to the claim that ‘violent media causes
violent behaviour’. However, due to the limitations of evidence and the
methodological processes, caution should be taken in generalising the
findings from this investigation to other forms of violent media, and other
types of violent behaviour.
Word count: 1995
Reference List:
Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Human aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1679 – 1686.
Ferguson C., and Rueda, S. (2010). The Hitman Study: violent video
game exposure effects on aggressive behaviour, hostile feelings and
depression, European psychology 15, pp. 99.
Macquarie Dictionary (2017) Macmillan Publishers Australia. Retrieved
from https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au.
Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting (2017, 11 March) Wikipedia.
Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_
Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator.
Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., and Ward, T. (2007). The effects of playing
violent video games on adolescents: Should parents be quaking in their
boots? Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 383-385.