IB Psychology HL 2.1 Biological Approach Questions

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics and behaviour.

Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:
- Cases et al. (1995);
Mosienko et al. (2012), Van Oortmerssen and Bakker 's (1981) studies of aggression in mice
- Farooqi and Rahilly (2006);
Friedman (1950) studies of obesity in rats
- Shmelkov et al.'s (2010) study of OCD in mice

Evaluation of the selected research studies may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations
- potential differences between humans and animals
- the strengths and limitations of a reductionist approach
- supporting and/or contradictory findings
- construct validity with regard to the behaviour studied and the question of anthropomorphism
- the applications of the empirical findings

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations of the study or studies, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of how one theory or study clearly demonstrates a principle relevant to the biological level of analysis.

Acceptable principles may include, but are not limited to:
- behaviour is, to some extent, genetically based
- animal research may inform our understanding of human behaviour
- there are biological correlates to human behaviour.

Responses should focus on the link between the principle and the theory or study - for example, a specific example of what animal research teaches us about human behaviour.

If a candidate explains more than one principle in relation to one or more theories or studies, credit should be given only to the first principle explained in the first theory or study used.

If a relevant principle and research are described but the link is not explicitly explained, then apply the markbands up to a maximum of [6].

If a candidate explains a relevant principle making no link to an example of research at the biological level of analysis, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

If a candidate makes reference to a study or theory at the biological level of analysis but there is no relevant principle outlined, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.

Marks

Level descriptor

0

The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1-3

There is an attempt to answer the question, but knowledge and understanding is
limited, often inaccurate, or of marginal relevance to the question.

4-6

The question is partially answered. Knowledge and understanding is accurate but
limited. Either the command term is not effectively addressed or the response is not sufficiently explicit in answering the question.

7-8

The question is answered in a focused and effective manner and meets the
demands of the command term. The response is supported by appropriate and accurate knowledge and understanding of research.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Brain imaging techniques may include, but are not limited to: CT scans, EEG, fMRI, MRI, PET.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Corkin's (1997) MRI of patient HM
- Eisenberger et al's (2003) study of rejection using an fMRI
- Fisher, Aron and Brown's (2005) study using fMRI to investigate dopamine and love.
- Harris and Fiske's (2006) study of response to out-groups using fMRI
- Maguire's (2000) study of hippocampal neuroplasticity in taxi drivers using MRI
- Raine et al.'s (1997) study of murderers using PET
- Sharot et al.'s (2007) study of flashbulb memories using fMRI.

Evaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:
- ecological validity versus internal validity
- generally small sample sizes
- how brain imaging has changed the way we study the brain - eg improved ethical standards
- invasive elements of some techniques
- limitations of correlational research
- researcher biases in the interpretation of brain scans

The focus of the response should be on the evaluation of the technique used to study the brain. Although an understanding of how the technique works may be beneficial, it is not required for marks in the top band.

If a candidate evaluates more than one technique, credit should be given only to the first technique evaluated.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.