IB Psychology HL 3.1 Health and Well Being Topic Practice

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the influence of biological factors on health problems.

It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or cognitive factors in order to respond to the command term "to what extent".

Candidates are likely to write about health problems in relation to health topics in the psychology guide, namely stress, obesity, addiction, chronic pain, and/or sexual health.

Biological factors influencing health problems may include, but are not limited to:
- genetics
- hormones
- physiological responses
- brain chemistry.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- DiFranza et al.'s (2005) research on biological factors in adolescents' smoking history and addiction
- Powel and Chaloupka's (2003) study on the role of parental influences on the probability of youth smoking
- Unger et al.'s (2001) cross-cultural survey on adolescent smoking considering the peer factor as well as individualistic and collectivistic cultures
- Volkow et al.'s (2002) fMRI study of obese individuals indicating one possible explanation of overweight (support of the theory of compulsive overeating)
- Prentice and Jebb's (1995) correlational study on increase in obesity and car ownership and television viewing
- Teevale et al.'s (2010) mixed-method study on the role of sociocultural factors in obesity in Pacific adolescents and their parents
- Gibson and Helme's (2000) study on cognitive factors and the experience of pain and suffering in older persons
- Speisman et al.'s (1964) study on the role of cognition in mediating stress caused by watching circumcision.

When responding to the command term "to what extent", considerations may include, but are not limited to:
- degree of empirical support
- methodological and/or ethical considerations of research addressed within the context of the question (e.g. generalizability of findings)
- cultural, age and/or gender considerations
- possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases
- issues of validity and reliability
- alternative explanations or findings
- comparison of explanations/factors
- relevant approaches and issues and debates
- practical applications and real world implications.

Candidates may discuss one biological factor in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a greater number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the contribution of cognitive factors that affect abnormal behaviour.

Cognitive factors may include, but are not limited to:
- cognitive approaches to treatment
- cognitive etiologies for specific disorders
- negative cognitive schemas influencing depression
- distorted weight-related schema influencing bulimia
- intrusive memories influencing panic reactions in patients with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).

The focus of the response should be on the cognitive factors influencing abnormal behaviour. However, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other factors (such as biological factors and/or sociocultural factors) in order to respond to the command term "to what extent".

The term "abnormal behaviour" can be interpreted by candidates differently - some candidates may focus on the extent to which cognitive factors influence only one type of abnormal behaviour (for example, a specific disorder) or address the term in a general manner by offering several examples of how some cognitive factors relate to several disorders. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Candidates may consider a small number of cognitive factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of cognitive or sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of cultural variations in the prevalence of disorders.

The term "prevalence" refers to the percentage of individuals within a population who are affected by a specific disorder at a given time. The prevalence of any psychological disorder may be discussed.

Responses may include, but are not limited to:
- reference to an increase in diagnoses related to differences in cultural norms (for example, an increase in diagnoses of depression or eating disorders in women)
- addressing cultural factors that seem to increase the risk of developing affective or eating disorders
- reference to evidence that with increasing Westernization, rates of certain disorders tend to increase
- addressing changes in diagnostic screening which help mental health professions become more culturally aware in their diagnoses
- culture-bound disorders
- the interaction between biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors
- some prevalence rates are consistent across cultures, for example, schizophrenia.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Okulate et al. (2004) - core symptoms of depression are shared in different cultures
- Jaeger et al. (2002) - body dissatisfaction suggesting significant differences between cultures
- Dutton (2009) - cultural variations in prevalence of major depression could be due to cultural differences in stress, standard of living and reporting bias
- how emic versus etic approaches affect prevalence rates.

Candidates may discuss a smaller number of cultural variations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural variations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Candidates may discuss a small number of disorders in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of disorders in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.