2024 IB DP Psychology Practice Paper with Answers

Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's ability to reorganize its structure and neural connections in response to environmental stimuli, learning, or experience. This can occur at a micro-level (synaptic plasticity, dendritic branching) or macro-level (changes in grey matter volume). An excellent study to demonstrate this is Draganski et al. (2004).

Draganski et al. aimed to investigate whether structural changes in the human brain could occur in response to learning a new motor skill (juggling). The researchers used a sample of 24 non-jugglers. Participants underwent an initial MRI scan. They were then split into two groups: jugglers and non-jugglers. The jugglers spent three months learning a classic three-ball juggling routine and had a second MRI scan when they reached mastery. They were then instructed to stop juggling for three months, followed by a final MRI scan. The non-juggling control group had scans at the same intervals.

The MRI scans showed that before learning to juggle, there were no significant regional differences in grey matter. However, after three months of practice, the jugglers showed a significant increase in grey matter volume in the mid-temporal area of both hemispheres, an area associated with visual memory and movement perception. After three months of not juggling, this grey matter volume decreased, although it did not return entirely to baseline levels. The control group showed no changes.

This study demonstrates neuroplasticity because it shows that learning a new environmental skill directly leads to structural alterations in the brain (dendritic branching in response to training), while lack of practice leads to a reduction of these structures (synaptic pruning). This highlights that the brain remains plastic and adaptive throughout adulthood.

Marks should be awarded using the official IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **7 to 9 marks**: The response is fully focused on the prompt. It provides a clear, accurate explanation of neuroplasticity. A relevant study (e.g., Draganski et al., 2004) is accurately described (aim, method, findings) and explicitly linked to the concept of neuroplasticity to show how it demonstrates the phenomenon.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response is relevant but lacks depth or clarity. Neuroplasticity is explained but with some gaps. A study is described, but the link between the study's findings and neuroplasticity is weak, incomplete, or merely implicit.
- **1 to 3 marks**: The response has limited relevance. There is a poor explanation of neuroplasticity. The study may be omitted, highly inaccurate, or not relevant to neuroplasticity.

*Accept/Reject Notes*: Accept any valid research study demonstrating neuroplasticity (e.g., Maguire et al., 2000; Luby et al., 2013; Rosenzweig and Bennett, 1972). Reject studies that focus purely on localization of function without explicitly addressing the dynamic structural changes associated with neuroplasticity.

Schema theory is a cognitive theory that suggests human memory and information processing are guided by mental frameworks called schemas. Schemas are organized packets of knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about aspects of the world, built up from prior experience. They help us simplify and interpret new information, but they can also lead to distortions in memory retrieval because memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive.

This is demonstrated in a study by Brewer and Treyens (1981), which investigated whether people's memory for objects in a room is influenced by their existing schema of what to expect in an office.

In this study, 86 university students were asked to wait individually in an office room for about 35 seconds. The room contained standard office items (e.g., desk, typewriter, calendar) and some highly unusual, non-schema-consistent items (e.g., a skull, a bark basket). Crucially, some standard office items (like books) were omitted. Participants were then moved to another room and asked to write down everything they could remember from the office. They were tested using three conditions: recall, drawing, or recognition.

The results showed that when asked to write down or draw the objects, participants were highly likely to recall schema-consistent items, even if they weren't actually in the room (such as books or a filing cabinet). They also recalled the unusual items (like the skull) because these highly unexpected items drew attention. However, standard items that were absent were falsely recalled due to schema influence.

This study demonstrates schema theory by showing that participants used their pre-existing "office schema" to reconstruct their memory of the room. When memory was incomplete, their schema filled in the blanks with expected objects (reconstructive memory errors), showing that schemas actively guide cognitive processing and retrieval.

Marks should be awarded using the official IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **7 to 9 marks**: The response is highly focused on the prompt. It provides a clear, detailed explanation of schema theory (including cognitive frameworks, encoding, and reconstructive memory). One relevant study (e.g., Brewer and Treyens, 1981) is accurately described and its findings are explicitly linked to explain how schemas influence memory reconstruction.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response explains schema theory and describes a study, but there may be some omissions or minor inaccuracies. The link between the study's findings and the theoretical concept of schema is present but could be developed more clearly.
- **1 to 3 marks**: The response shows limited understanding of schema theory. The study is either missing, inaccurate, or its connection to schema theory is not established.

*Accept/Reject Notes*: Accept any valid cognitive study investigating schema theory (e.g., Bartlett, 1932; Bransford and Johnson, 1972; Anderson and Pichert, 1978). Reject studies that are purely about memory storage (e.g., Multi-Store Model) without discussing schema influence.

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), developed by Albert Bandura, proposes that human behaviour is learned through the observation of models in the social environment. Unlike simple behaviorism, SCT emphasizes the role of cognitive processes that mediate learning. Bandura identified four key cognitive conditions required for observational learning to occur: attention (noticing the model), retention (remembering the model's behaviour), reproduction (having the physical/cognitive capability to perform the behaviour), and motivation (having a reason to imitate the behaviour, often influenced by vicarious reinforcement).

A classic study demonstrating this theory is the Bobo Doll experiment conducted by Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961). The study aimed to investigate whether children would imitate aggressive behaviour modeled by an adult.

The researchers used 72 children (aged 3 to 6 years) divided into groups. One group observed an adult model acting aggressively towards an inflatable Bobo Doll (punching, kicking, striking it with a mallet, and shouting verbally aggressive phrases). Another group observed a non-aggressive model playing quietly with construction toys, and a control group observed no model. Afterwards, the children were placed in a room with toys, including the Bobo Doll, and their behavior was observed through a one-way mirror.

The results showed that children who observed the aggressive model exhibited significantly more physical and verbal aggressive behaviors resembling those of the model compared to the non-aggressive and control groups. Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression, especially if the model was male, showing the influence of model identification on motivation.

This study directly demonstrates Social Cognitive Theory. The children paid attention to the adult model, retained the specific actions (as shown by their precise replication of unique aggressive acts like using the mallet), possessed the motor skills to reproduce the actions, and were motivated to do so in the test phase. This confirms that complex social behaviours like aggression can be acquired through observational learning without direct reinforcement.

Marks should be awarded using the official IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **7 to 9 marks**: The response is highly focused on the prompt. It provides a clear, accurate explanation of Social Cognitive Theory, including key cognitive factors (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation). A relevant study (e.g., Bandura et al., 1961) is described accurately and its findings are explicitly linked to explain how observational learning occurs.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response is relevant, but the explanation of SCT or the study has minor gaps. The connection between the study and SCT is present but not fully developed or lacks explicit reference to cognitive mediators.
- **1 to 3 marks**: The response has limited relevance. It fails to accurately explain SCT or describe a relevant study.

*Accept/Reject Notes*: Accept any valid study investigating Social Cognitive Theory / Social Learning Theory (e.g., Charlton et al., 2002; Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack, 1986; Perry, Perry, and Rasmussen, 1986). Reject studies focusing on other social theories (e.g., Social Identity Theory, like Tajfel, 1970) unless explicitly and correctly linked to modeling/observational learning.

Introduction: Define memory and outline the concept of reconstructive memory. Reconstructive memory refers to the idea that retrieving memories is an active process of reconstruction rather than a passive playback of recorded events. When we recall an event, we rebuild the memory using logical assumptions, social expectations, and schema-guided interpretations. Discussing this concept requires examining the evidence supporting it and the limitations of this model, particularly in high-emotion, real-world contexts. Body Paragraph 1 (Theory of Reconstructive Memory): Explain how schemas and post-event information can alter our memories. Elizabeth Loftus proposed that misinformation introduced after an event can become integrated into the memory, leading to false memories. This has significant implications for eyewitness testimony. Body Paragraph 2 (Supporting Study - Loftus and Palmer, 1974): In their classic study, Loftus and Palmer aimed to investigate if leading questions could influence speed estimates of a car crash and subsequent memory of the event. Participants watched film clips of traffic accidents and were asked questions, including a critical leading question with varying verbs ('smashed', 'collided', 'bumped', 'hit', or 'contacted'). The results showed that participants who heard the word 'smashed' estimated higher speeds and were significantly more likely to report seeing broken glass a week later, even though there was none. This supports the idea that post-event misleading information can reconstruct the memory of an event. Body Paragraph 3 (Counterpoint Study - Yuille and Cutshall, 1986): To evaluate the ecological validity of laboratory findings, Yuille and Cutshall studied eyewitnesses to a real-life gun shooting in Vancouver. Despite the presence of misleading questions, witnesses remained highly accurate in their recall of the event four to five months later. This suggests that the reconstructive memory effect observed in laboratory settings may not readily generalise to real-life, highly emotional, and personally relevant events. Body Paragraph 4 (Critical Evaluation): Discuss the strengths of reconstructive memory theory, such as its application in legal settings (reforming police line-up and interview procedures). Discuss limitations, including the low ecological validity of lab experiments (which often lack emotional involvement) and individual differences in susceptibility to misinformation. Conclusion: Conclude by summarizing that while memory is demonstrated to be reconstructive and prone to distortion under laboratory conditions, real-life traumatic memories may show greater resilience to reconstruction, highlighting the complexity of human cognitive processes.

The response is evaluated using the official IB Psychology Paper 1 Section B assessment criteria (Total: 22 marks). Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks) - To achieve 2 marks, the response must remain focused on the reconstructive nature of memory throughout, directly addressing the command term 'discuss'. Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks) - To achieve 5-6 marks, the response must demonstrate detailed, accurate, and comprehensive knowledge of reconstructive memory theory and schemas. Criterion C: Use of research to support answer (6 marks) - To achieve 5-6 marks, the response must use relevant research (such as Loftus and Palmer, 1974, and Yuille and Cutshall, 1986) effectively to support the discussion, with clear descriptions of aims, methods, and results. Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks) - To achieve 5-6 marks, the response must show well-developed critical evaluation of both the theory and the studies used, discussing strengths, limitations, methodological issues (e.g., ecological validity), and alternative viewpoints. Criterion E: Clarity and organisation (2 marks) - To achieve 2 marks, the response must be well-structured, logical, coherent, and use psychological terminology appropriately.

Introduction: Define clinical bias as systematic deviations from objectivity or accuracy during the diagnostic process. Explain that clinical bias can stem from clinician demographics, cultural stereotypes, gender expectations, or cognitive heuristics (such as confirmation bias). State the thesis: clinical biases can significantly undermine the reliability and validity of psychological diagnoses, as demonstrated by empirical studies exploring cultural, gender, and prestige influences. Body Paragraph 1 (Cognitive/Prestige Bias): Explain confirmation bias and prestige effect in diagnosis. When a clinician is primed with a prior label, they may selectively look for symptoms confirming that label. Supporting Study: Temerlin (1968). In this study, clinical psychologists and graduate students listened to an interview of a healthy individual. One group was told by a high-prestige clinician that the individual was psychotic. A significant majority of participants in the primed condition diagnosed the individual as psychotic, compared to none in the control group. This shows how cognitive heuristics and authority bias can distort clinical judgment. Body Paragraph 2 (Cultural/Ethnic Bias): Explain how cultural stereotyping leads to over-diagnosis or under-diagnosis. Diagnosticians may misunderstand culturally normal behaviors as symptoms of pathology due to a lack of cultural competence. Supporting Study: Li-Repac (1980). This study compared diagnoses of white and Chinese-American clinicians assessing white and Chinese-American patients. Clinicians of different backgrounds interpreted the same behavioral videotapes differently; white clinicians rated Chinese-American clients as more depressed and inhibited, whereas Chinese-American clinicians rated white clients as more active and expressive. This highlights how cultural paradigms influence clinical interpretation. Body Paragraph 3 (Gender Bias): Explain how gender stereotypes shape a clinician's perception of abnormality. Certain diagnoses are disproportionately assigned to men or women based on perceived gender norms. Supporting Study: Broverman et al. (1970). Clinicians were asked to describe healthy males, healthy females, and healthy adults (gender-neutral). The descriptions of healthy adults aligned closely with healthy males, whereas healthy females were characterized as more submissive, emotional, and easily hurt, implying that societal standards of healthy female behavior were viewed as less healthy/mature by clinicians. Critical Discussion/Evaluation: Highlight the consequences of bias (stigmatization, inappropriate treatment). Contrast this with modern attempts to minimize bias, such as the use of standardized diagnostic criteria (DSM-5 and ICD-11 cultural formulation interviews) and blind diagnostic procedures. Acknowledge methodological limitations of studies: many are lab-based simulations with video recordings or vignettes, which may not fully capture the complexity and iterative nature of real-life clinical assessments. Conclusion: Summarize how biases remain a critical challenge to diagnostic validity and call for reflective practice and culturally responsive clinical training.

Award marks based on the IB Psychology 22-mark rubric criteria: Criterion A: Focus on the question (1-2 marks): The essay should specifically target clinical biases in diagnosis and remain focused throughout. Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (1-6 marks): Demonstrate deep understanding of different types of clinical bias (e.g., cultural, gender, confirmation bias) and diagnostic concepts (reliability, validity). Criterion C: Use of research to support answer (1-6 marks): Relevant studies (e.g., Temerlin, Li-Repac, Broverman) must be accurately described and integrated. Criterion D: Critical thinking (1-6 marks): Evaluate the strengths and limitations of the studies and theories, discuss the ethical/practical implications of diagnosis biases, and analyze methods to mitigate bias. Criterion E: Clarity and organization (1-2 marks): The essay is well-structured, coherent, and uses appropriate psychological terminology.

Introduction: Introduce the topic of relationship dissolution. Identify the chosen psychological explanations: Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), Equity Theory (Walster et al., 1978), and Gottman's communication-based model of relationship breakdown (The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse). State the thesis: while economic theories of relationships explain change through cost-benefit trade-offs, communication-centered approaches offer a more dynamic and predictive framework for relationship dissolution, though both are subject to methodological and cultural limitations. Body Paragraph 1 (Social Exchange & Equity Theories): Describe Social Exchange Theory (SET), focusing on the concepts of cost-benefit analysis, Comparison Level (CL), and Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt). Explain how relationships end when costs exceed benefits or when better alternatives exist. Introduce Equity Theory as an extension, arguing that relationships are unstable when partners perceive inequality (under-benefitting or over-benefitting). Supporting Study: Hatfield et al. (1979). Investigated the role of equity in newlywed couples and found that those who perceived their relationship as equitable reported higher levels of satisfaction and were less likely to engage in extramarital affairs, whereas under-benefitted partners felt angry and over-benefitted felt guilty, both leading to lower relationship stability. Body Paragraph 2 (Communication and Gottman's Four Horsemen): Contrast economic models with the role of communication. Describe John Gottman's communication theory, focusing on the Four Horsemen: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Contempt is identified as the single strongest predictor of relationship dissolution. Supporting Study: Gottman and Levenson (1992). Tracked couples over time using physiological measures and communication analysis during conflict tasks. They found that the presence of the Four Horsemen during conflict discussions predicted divorce with a high degree of accuracy. Critical Evaluation/Discussion: Methodological evaluation: Discuss how relationship research often relies on retrospective self-reports (subject to social desirability and memory reconstruction) or highly controlled observational setups (which may lack ecological validity). Discuss correlational nature: it is difficult to establish whether poor communication causes relationship deterioration or is merely a symptom of preexisting dissatisfaction. Cultural limitations: SET, Equity, and Gottman's models are heavily grounded in Western, individualist paradigms where autonomy, personal happiness, and equal distribution of labor are prioritized. In collectivist cultures, family expectations, social norms, and institutional barriers (e.g., stigma of divorce) often override individual cost-benefit assessments or communication style in determining whether a relationship ends. Conclusion: Summarize the main points, emphasizing that explaining relationship dissolution requires a holistic approach that combines individual cognitive evaluations of equity with interpersonal communication dynamics, while remaining sensitive to cultural contexts.

Award marks based on the IB Psychology 22-mark rubric criteria: Criterion A: Focus on the question (1-2 marks): The essay must explicitly evaluate explanations of why relationships change or end. Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (1-6 marks): Accurate description of relevant theories (e.g., Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory, Gottman's Communication Model). Criterion C: Use of research to support answer (1-6 marks): Relevant empirical research (e.g., Hatfield, Gottman and Levenson) is accurately presented and used to support explanations. Criterion D: Critical thinking (1-6 marks): Critical analysis of theories and research, highlighting methodological limitations (correlational designs, self-report bias), cultural limitations (Western bias), and alternative explanations. Criterion E: Clarity and organization (1-2 marks): The response is structured logically, presents a balanced argument, and uses appropriate psychological terminology.

1. Identification: Semi-structured interviews (1 mark). 2. Characteristic 1: The researcher uses an interview guide containing pre-determined, open-ended questions, which ensures that certain key topics are covered systematically across different participants (1 mark). 3. Characteristic 2: The method allows for conversational flexibility, meaning the interviewer can adapt the order of questions or ask clarification/probing questions to dig deeper into unexpected insights (1 mark).

[1 mark] for correctly identifying semi-structured interviews as the qualitative method. [1 mark] for outlining one valid characteristic of semi-structured interviews (e.g., use of an interview guide / open-ended questions). [1 mark] for outlining a second valid characteristic (e.g., flexibility, interactive nature, or the use of probing questions).

1. Strength: Purposive sampling is highly efficient because it targets individuals who possess the specific characteristics and experiences required to address the research question (first-generation student status), leading to highly detailed and relevant data (1 mark). 2. Limitation: The sampling method is non-probabilistic and subjective, making it vulnerable to researcher selection bias and limiting the statistical generalizability of the findings to all university students (1 mark). 3. Contextual Application: Explicitly linking either the strength or limitation to the specific context of first-generation students adjusting to university life (1 mark).

[1 mark] for clearly describing a strength of purposive sampling. [1 mark] for clearly describing a limitation of purposive sampling. [1 mark] for applying the description directly to the context of first-generation university students.

1. Definition/Concept: Reflexivity refers to the researcher's active self-reflection on their own personal background, assumptions, and potential biases, and how these might influence the research process, data collection, or interpretation (1 mark). 2. Importance: It is crucial for maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research, as it acknowledges the subjective nature of the research and works to prevent personal biases from distorting the findings (1 mark). 3. Application: In a study on sensitive student struggles, a researcher's own educational background (e.g., if they were a continuing-generation student from a privileged background) could bias how they interpret the challenges of first-generation students; practicing reflexivity helps mitigate this effect (1 mark).

[1 mark] for explaining the concept of reflexivity (personal or epistemological). [1 mark] for explaining why reflexivity is important to qualitative research (e.g., credibility, trustworthiness, or managing subjectivity). [1 mark] for linking the explanation directly to the context of investigating sensitive student experiences.

### Applied Ethical Considerations in the Study:
1. **Deception:** The researchers used deception by telling participants the study was about "mental imagery during virtual coordination" to prevent demand characteristics. Deception is ethically permissible only if justified by the study's scientific value and when no alternative is available, which applies here as knowing the true aim would alter natural behavior.
2. **Debriefing:** The researchers conducted a debriefing immediately after the experiment. During this session, they revealed the true nature of the study, explained why the deception was necessary, and ensured that the participants understood the other players were computerized avatars rather than real peers.
3. **Right to Withdraw:** During the post-experimental debriefing, participants were explicitly given the choice to withdraw their data from the study if they felt uncomfortable with the deception or their behavior during the task.

### Further Ethical Considerations that Could be Applied:
1. **Protection from Psychological Harm:** Being excluded in Cyberball can induce real, albeit temporary, feelings of rejection, sadness, and low self-esteem. Furthermore, being given the opportunity to aggress against others (via white noise) might cause post-experimental shame or guilt. To mitigate this, the researchers could implement a *mood-induction/repair task* (e.g., showing a funny video or having a pleasant interaction) before participants leave, or offer access to psychological support/counseling.
2. **Anonymity and Confidentiality:** Given that the study measures aggressive behavior (administering loud white noise), participants' responses must be kept completely confidential and anonymous. If their peers or university staff found out they behaved aggressively, it could damage their reputation. Data should be coded (e.g., using participant numbers instead of names).
3. **Informed Consent (with Deception):** Although full disclosure was not possible beforehand, researchers could have obtained *presumptive consent* (asking a similar group if they would find the deception acceptable) or *prior general consent* (asking participants if they are willing to participate in a study where some information is withheld initially).

**Marks allocation (Total: 6 marks):**

* **1 to 3 marks:** The student identifies and describes ethical considerations that were *applied* in the study (e.g., debriefing, justification of deception, right to withdraw).
* *1 mark* for identifying at least one applied consideration.
* *2 marks* for describing how these applied considerations functioned in the context of the study.
* *3 marks* for a detailed, accurate description of multiple applied considerations with direct reference to the stimulus.

* **4 to 6 marks:** The student explains how *further* ethical considerations could/should be applied to this specific study (e.g., protection from psychological harm/mood repair, confidentiality/anonymity of aggression data, informed/presumptive consent).
* *4 marks* for identifying a valid further consideration with a basic explanation of how it could be applied.
* *5 marks* for explaining how further considerations could be applied, clearly linking them to the specific vulnerabilities of the study (e.g., the pain of social exclusion or guilt from aggressive behavior).
* *6 marks* for a well-structured, comprehensive response that balances both applied and further ethical considerations, demonstrating a deep understanding of ethical principles within psychological research.

**Introduction:** In qualitative research, credibility refers to the trustworthiness and accuracy of the findings. In this study, several sources of researcher and participant bias are present, which significantly threaten credibility.

**Researcher Bias:**
1. **Confirmation Bias:** Because the researcher is a strong advocate of mindfulness, they may selectively look for, interpret, and emphasize data that supports the effectiveness of MBCT.
2. **Leading Questions:** The question 'How much more relaxed do you feel after practicing mindfulness?' is highly leading. It assumes that participants feel relaxed, steering them to confirm the researcher's expectations.
3. **Personal Relationships:** Knowing the participants personally can compromise the researcher's objectivity during data collection and analysis, leading to biased interpretations of responses.

**Participant Bias:**
1. **Social Desirability and Pleasing the Researcher:** Participants who know the researcher personally may want to help them or avoid disappointing them. Consequently, they may exaggerate the benefits of the MBCT program.
2. **Demand Characteristics:** Since participants volunteered for a mindfulness study, they likely inferred the study's aim and may have adapted their behaviors or responses to fit what they believed the researcher wanted to hear.
3. **Self-Selection Bias:** The sample consists of self-selected volunteers who are already motivated to try mindfulness, meaning their positive outcomes may not generalize to the wider workforce.

**How to Minimize These Biases:**
1. **Neutral Interviewer (Investigator Triangulation):** The researcher could employ an independent interviewer who does not know the participants and has no vested interest in mindfulness. This minimizes confirmation bias and social desirability.
2. **Reflexivity:** The researcher must engage in personal and epistemological reflexivity, keeping a journal to document their own biases, assumptions, and how their relationship with participants could influence the research.
3. **Non-Leading Interview Guide:** Questions should be open-ended and neutral (e.g., 'Can you describe any changes in your stress levels?').
4. **Participant Validation (Member Checking):** After transcribing the interviews, the researcher could ask participants to review the transcripts and interpretations to ensure they accurately represent their experiences, reducing researcher interpretation bias.
5. **Methodological Triangulation:** Combining qualitative interviews with objective quantitative data (e.g., heart rate variability or cortisol levels) would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

**Marking Criteria (9 marks total):**

**7-9 marks:** The response shows a deep and accurate understanding of both researcher and participant bias. It directly applies these concepts to the provided stimulus, identifying specific biases (such as leading questions, personal relationships, self-selection, and confirmation bias). The explanation of how these biases affect credibility is clear and well-reasoned. The response offers realistic, detailed, and appropriate strategies for minimizing these biases (such as independent interviewers, reflexivity, neutral question design, and triangulation) with excellent focus and structure.

**4-6 marks:** The response identifies researcher and/or participant bias but may discuss them with less depth or detail. Application to the stimulus is present but may be unbalanced (focusing mostly on one type of bias). Suggestions for minimizing these biases are offered but may lack specificity or practical detail.

**1-3 marks:** The response shows a limited understanding of bias. It may identify some biases without explaining their impact on the study's credibility, or the suggestions for minimizing them are absent, superficial, or incorrect.

**Accept/Reject Notes:** Accept any valid discussions of qualitative research concepts, such as credibility, trustworthiness, reflexivity, and triangulation, provided they are applied to the scenario. Reject answers that focus purely on quantitative experimental biases (like double-blind placebo designs for drug trials) if they cannot be realistically applied to this qualitative interview-based study.