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.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of the role of one hormone in human behaviour.

Responses should make a clear link between the role of the hormone(s) and human behaviour. Examples of how hormones influence human behaviour could include, but are not limited to:
- Radke et al.'s (2015) study investigating the effects of testosterone on aggression
- McGaugh and Cahill's (1995) study on adrenaline and memory
- Newcomer et al.'s (1999) study on cortisol and memory
- Baumgartner et al.'s (2008) study on the role of oxytocin on trust
- Ronay and von Hippel's (2010) study on testosterone and risk taking.

If a candidate describes the role of more than one hormone, credit should be given only to the first hormone described.

If a candidate refers to more than one study credit should be given only to the first study.
If a candidate describes the role of one hormone without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.

If a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing the role of the hormone in the study of human behaviour, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

Responses referring to research conducted on animals are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the merits of the principle that genetic inheritance influences behaviour.

Candidates may choose a single behaviour (such as intelligence, depression or obesity), or they may choose a number of behaviours and take a more holistic approach.

In order to address the command term "to what extent", candidates may address:
- the interaction of genes with the environment
- strengths and limitations of genetic research
- alternative explanations - i.e. cognitive and sociocultural explanations.

Examples of relevant studies include, but are not limited to:
- Heston's (1966), Gottesman's (1991) and Kety et al.'s (1975) studies examining the genetic inheritance of schizophrenia
- Kendler et al. (2006), Caspi et al. (2003) and Nurnberger and Gershon (1982) on the possible genetic factors involved in depression
- Garn et al. (1981) and Stunkard et al. (1990) examining obesity and genetic factors
- Bouchard et al. (1990), Scarr and Weinberg (1977), and Plomin and Petrill (1977) examining IQ and genetic inheritance.

Explanations of the role of genetic inheritance may refer to concordance rates, specific research regarding the properties of specific genes, or findings from twin and adoption studies. If a candidate makes reference to research from evolutionary psychology, the focus of the response must be on how genetic inheritance influences the behaviour.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study related to localization of function in the brain. Animal research is also acceptable for this response.

Descriptions should include the aim, method (which may include the sample, research method used and/or the procedure) and results/findings, with a clear link to localization of function. Candidates should clearly identify the specific part of the brain and its function.

If Sperry and Gazzaniga's study of split-brain patients is described, it is important that the focus be on localization of function.

If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first description.

Section A markbands

Marks

Level descriptor

0

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

1 to 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 to 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 to 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 "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of effects of the environment on physiological processes.

Examples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to:
- effects of jet lag on bodily rhythms
- effects of poverty on neuroplasticity
- effects of learning on neuroplasticity
- effects of environmental stressors on cardiovascular health
- effects of institutionalization on growth and physical development.

Examples of studies/theories include, but are not limited to:
- Maguire et al. (2000) on neuroplasticity in the hippocampus of taxi drivers
- Marmot et al.'s (1997) Whitehall study on workplace stress and cardiovascular health
- Meaney's (1988) study on environmental stressors and hippocampal cell loss in rats
- Rosenzweig and Bennett's (1972) study on stimulating environments and dendritic branching.

Meditation studies are not valid responses to this question as there are no environmental factors involved.

Discussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological or ethical issues
- empirical evidence
- application of the findings
- contradictory findings
- other contributing factors.

Candidates may discuss one effect of the environment or one physiological process in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of effects of the environment or physiological processes in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, with reasons or causes, of how one agonist affects behaviour with reference to one relevant study.

An agonist is a molecule that can bind and activate a receptor to induce a biological reaction. Candidates may either use an example of an endogenous agonist, such as a neurotransmitter, or an exogenous agonist, such as a drug.

Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:
- Antonova et al. (2011) - acetylcholine and its effects on spatial memory consolidation
- Martinez and Kesner (1991) - physostigmine as an ACh agonist in the consolidation of spatial memory
- Passamonti et al. (2012) - serotonin as an agonist in the study of impulsive aggression
- Rogers and Kesner (2003) - acetylcholine and its effects on spatial memory consolidation
- Setiawan et al. (2013) - alcohol as a dopamine agonist and increased activity in the nucleus accumbens

If a candidate explains the effect of one agonist without reference to a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [5].

If a candidate addresses a relevant study but does not explain the effect of one agonist, award up to a maximum of [4].

If a candidate explains the effect of more than one agonist, credit should be given only to the first agonist.

If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only for the first study.