IB Psychology HL 3.2 Human Development Questions

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more theories of brain development by weighing up the strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
- theory of neuroplasticity
- maturational theory of brain development.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Chugani's (1999) study of PET scans and glucose metabolism in newborns
- Giedd's (2004) longitudinal study of healthy children using MRI scans
- Waber's (2007) longitudinal study of normal brain development using MRI scans
- Strathearn et al.'s (2001) study of delayed cognitive development and head growth.

Evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
- the accuracy and clarity of the theory
- productivity of the theory in generating psychological research
- methodological, cultural, and gender considerations
- contrary explanations
- applications of the theory
- ethical concerns regarding research
- relevance of animal models for human brain development.

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 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "examine" requires candidates to uncover the assumptions and interrelationships between social and/or environmental variables and cognitive development. The variables examined do not have to be specifically identified as social or environmental as they are arguably very much related.

Candidates may examine social/environmental variables in relation to specific aspects of cognitive development (for example, memory, intelligence or attention) or examine cognitive development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Candidates may examine positive influences of social/environmental variables (for example, Head Start programmes or parental training) as well as negative influences (for example, deprivation or trauma) on cognitive development.

Variables may include, but are not limited to:
- interactions with parents, siblings, peers, teachers and other significant figures (for example, Farah et al., 2008)
- social/environmental variables in relation to specific cultures differ in the kinds of cognitive skills that are valued and consequently encouraged and developed (Vygotsky, 1978;
Cole and Scribner, 1974)
- children living in poverty are more likely to suffer from learning disabilities and developmental delays (for example, Rutter's studies;
Krugman, 2008)
- malnutrition can influence cognitive development (for example, Bhoomika et al., 2008)
- early nutritional supplements in the form of protein and increased calories can have positive long-term consequences for cognitive development (Pollitt, 1995).

Animal studies may be used to support the answer as long as they are explicitly linked to human cognitive development.

Candidates may examine one variable in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of variables in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

If a candidate only examines how one or more social and/or environmental variables may affect attachment, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "compare and contrast" requires candidates to give an account of similarities and differences between two theories of cognitive development. Although a discussion of both similarities and differences is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
- Piaget's assimilation/accommodation model of cognitive development
- Vygotsky's contextual approach to cognitive development
- Bruner's theory of cognitive development
- information-processing approach to cognitive development
- neurobiological explanations of cognitive development.

Comparing and contrasting points may include, but are not limited to:
- assumptions of the theories
- methodological considerations
- cultural and gender considerations
- stages versus continuous process
- productivity of the theories in generating psychological research
- applications of the empirical findings.

If a candidate discusses only similarities or only differences, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.

If a candidate only describes and evaluates one theory with no specific reference to another theory, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

If a candidate compares and contrasts more than two theories, credit should be given only to the first two theories. However, candidates may address other theories and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to clarify the comparison of the two main theories addressed in the response.

If a response is based upon theories of attachment rather than cognitive development, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the development of empathy and/or theory of mind. Candidates may discuss only the development of a theory of mind or only the development of empathy or may discuss the development of both of them. These approaches are equally acceptable.

The theory of mind is the ability to understand and attribute a particular mental state to a certain behaviour. Empathy is a similar concept but slightly different in that it refers to the ability to infer another's emotional state.

Research relevant to the development of a theory of mind may include, but is not limited to:
- Wellman et al. (2003)
- Flavell, Miller and Miller (1993)
- Wellman and Gelman (1992)
- Wellman (1990).

Research relevant to the development of empathy may include, but is not limited to:
- Birch (2016)
- Van der Mark et al. (2002)
- Damon and Hart (1992)
- Damon (1988).

Relevant areas of discussion may include, but are not limited to:
- the social and cultural influences (eg Astington and Gopnik, 1991;
Dunn et al., 1991;
Harris, 1989)
- the biological influences (eg Saxe and Powell, 2006;
Gallagher et al., 2003)
- the deficits in social insight, for example in autism spectrum disorders (eg Baron-Cohen, 2001;
Frith, 1994;
Leslie and Frith, 1988)
- the presence or absence of empathy or theory of mind in non-human animals (eg Penn and Povinelli, 2007;
Heyes, 1998;
Premack and Woodruff, 1978)

Responses referring to animal research are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour.

Responses referring to cognitive development are not acceptable and should not earn marks unless specifically tied to the development of theory of mind/empathy.

Development can be both positive and negative, so content concerning factors that hinder the development of Theory of Mind and/or empathy are acceptable and should be awarded marks.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "examine" requires candidates to uncover the assumptions and interrelationships between childhood attachment and relationships later in life.

Responses should highlight that research has found several indications of associations between attachment in childhood and relationship development in later life even if there is no clear evidence of direct causality.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Pratt and Norris (1994) showed that, among older people, the more positive their earlier attachment relationships, the more positive their reports on their current social relationships.
- Hazan and Shaver (1987) showed similarities between romantic love as experienced by adults and the characteristics of attachment.
- Sternberg and Beall (1991) pointed out that many adults find that their relationships vary: with one partner, they experience an insecure bond, but with the next a secure one. Similarly, research into infant attachment has shown that a child could be securely attached to one parent, but be anxious towards the other.

Responses referring to research with animals, such as Harlow's experiments with rhesus monkeys, are relevant but must be linked to attachment in human children and its role in the subsequent formation of relationships.

In order to demonstrate knowledge relevant to the question, responses should focus on the effect of attachment in childhood on later formation of relationships. Descriptions of research on attachment in childhood with no link to subsequent formation of relationships (such as Bowlby or Ainsworth) should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

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 arguments, factors or hypotheses of the formation and development of gender roles.

Candidates do not need to distinguish between the formation and development of gender roles, as the two are so closely linked.

Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
- gender schema theory that stresses the key role of cognitive processes in the development of gender roles
- social learning theory that highlights the importance of the social environment and emphasizes the potency of observational and modelling processes
- theory of psychosexual differentiation that is based on the assumption that gender roles are related to genetic sex determined by chromosomes
- evolutionary theory that attempts to locate gender role differences in a historical evolutionary context
- psychodynamic theory that is based on the assumption that gender roles appear when children identify with their same-sex parent.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Martin and Halvorson's study (1983) showing the role of gender schemas on gender roles
- Fagot's study (1978) showing the influence of parents on gender roles
- Mead's study (1935) showing that gender roles depend upon the society
- Money and Ehrhardt's study (1972) claiming that children are gender neutral at birth.

Discussion may include but is not limited to:
- supporting and contradicting evidence
- the role of sociocultural factors such as media, parental influence or stereotypes
- sociocultural differences in conceptualization of gender roles
- the interaction of nature and nurture
- methodological and/or ethical considerations.

when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development.

Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:
- the influence of different categories of play on cognitive and/or social development
- the therapeutic value of play
- Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories related to play and cognitive development
- the link between cognitive development and peer relationships
- the link between peer relationships and social comparison
- cultural differences in peer relationships

Studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Hughes' (1999) study on learning social skills through role play
- Russ's (2004) study of a child's capacity for cognitive flexibility and creativity developed by role play
- Todd et al.'s (2016);
Fagot's (1985) studies on gender-specific toys
- Bradbard et al.'s (1986) study on the influence of sex stereotypes on children's exploration and memory
- Albert et al.'s (2013) study on peer influences in adolescent decision-making
- Newcomb and Bentler's (1988) study showing how positive relationships are important in reducing adolescent's drug use
- Kupersmidt and Coie's (1990) studies on peer rejection as predictor of externalizing problems in adolescence.

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the role of peers and play in cognitive and/or social development
- how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied (eg designing physical education courses for different ages of children)
- implications of the findings
- assumptions and biases
- areas of uncertainty
- supporting and/or contradictory evidence
- alternative explanations addressing cognitive and/or social development.

Candidates may discuss one aspect of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of aspects of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development 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 "examine" requires candidates to consider the relationships between deprivation and/or trauma in childhood and later development. Candidates may address deprivation and/or trauma experiences but they do not have to specifically identify them as deprivation or trauma situations.

Research may include, but is not limited to:
- Rutter et al.'s (2001) and Rutter's (1981) studies on the consequences of deprivation
- case study of Genie
- Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Cockett and Tripp's (1994) study on long-term attachment deprivation effects
- Cyrulnik's theory of resilience
- Koluchova's case study showing the possibility to reverse the effects of deprivation
- Tedeschi and Calhoun's (2004) theory on the positive aspects emerging from the struggle with trauma.

In order to respond to the command term "examine", candidates may refer to:
- research explaining how resilience and protective factors reduce the impact of deprivation or trauma in childhood
- biological, cognitive or sociocultural factors in relation to potential effects of deprivation or trauma in childhood on later development
- traditional deterministic theories of deprivation
- research showing that deprivation or trauma may lead to positive growth
- short-term versus long-term effects of deprivation or trauma
- methodological and ethical considerations.

Candidates may make reference to animal studies as part of their response, and credit should be awarded for this as long as they relate the findings to human development.

Candidates may examine a small number of potential effects of deprivation/trauma in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of potential effects of deprivation/trauma in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.