Build your IB Psychology HL understanding of Human Relationships by connecting communication, attraction, group dynamics, prosocial behaviour, conflict and relationship change to evaluated research.
Describe acculturation with reference to one relevant study.
when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of acculturation.
Candidates could describe concepts of acculturation, acculturation strategies (Berry's acculturation model), and/or acculturative stress.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study on predicting acculturative stress in Asian immigrants and Asian Americans
- Wang et al.'s (2010) study on positive psychological functioning in Cuban American university students
- Shah et al.'s (2015) study on obesity in South Asian workers in the United Arab Emirates
- Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study on socio-psychological predictors of acculturative stress among Latino adults
- Berry et al.'s (2006) study on attitudes towards acculturation among immigrant youth
- Torres et al.'s (2012) correlational study of integration and disorientation in Latino-Americans
- Lyons-Padilla et al.'s (2015) study on marginalization and radicalization risk among Muslim immigrants.
If a candidate describes acculturation without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
If a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing acculturation, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons, for cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
- cultural norms
- different socialization processes in an individual's upbringing
- cultural dimensions (for example, individualism versus collectivism).
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Whiting's (1979) research on the role of extended family
- Bond and Leung's (1988) research on in-group bias
- Levine's studies on cultural differences in prosocial behaviour
- Whiting and Whiting's (1975) research into altruism levels in children from industrialized and non-industrialized countries.
Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not limited to:
- analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations
- application of empirical support in relation to a given problem or issue
- alternative explanations of prosocial behaviour
- addressing the issue of universality (for example, kin selection theory) versus cultural differences.
Candidates may use one research study in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may use a larger number of research studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss co-operation and/or competition in groups.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of co
operation and competition in groups.
Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
- realistic conflict theory
- game theory
- social identity theory
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Sherif's (1961) Robbers Cave study
- Aronson's (1971) jigsaw classroom
- Beeman and D'Amico's (1956) study of the effects of co-operation and competition on cohesiveness of small groups
- McCallum, Harring, Gilmore, Drenan, Chase, Insko, and Thibaut's (1985) study on competition and co-operation between groups and individuals using the Prisoner's Dilemm
- Tajfel et al. (1971)
Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- the role of co-operation in strengthening or weakening group cohesion
- effects of co-operation or competition on individual and group performance
- comparison of co-operation and competition in groups
- methodological and ethical considerations in research related to co-operation and/or competition in groups
- how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied
- implications of the findings
- assumptions and biases in research related to co-operation and/or competition in groups.
Evaluate psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of theories and/or studies relevant to strategies for reducing violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
There are a number of different strategies that candidates may refer to. A strategy is any plan of action or a programme for reducing violence.
Examples of psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence may include, but are not limited to:
- Olweus's (1993) longitudinal study on the effect of Olweus's bullying prevention program (OBPP) on bullying
- metropolitan area child study (MACS), 2002 - longitudinal study on the effectiveness of a community-based strategy
- Aronson's (1979) jigsaw classrooms research
- Wilson and Kelling's (1982) broken windows theory
- Feshbach and Feshbach (1982) on the effect of empathy training on reducing violence
- Ferguson et al.'s (2007) meta-analysis of effectiveness of school based programmes.
Evaluation of the selected research may include but is not limited to:
- ethical considerations
- methodological considerations
- cultural and gender considerations
- the effectiveness of the strategies
- supporting and contradicting evidence
- the applications of the empirical findings.
Candidates may evaluate a small number of theories and/or studies relevant to strategies for reducing violence in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of theories and/or studies on the effectiveness of strategies for reducing violence in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss one or more biological origins of attraction.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one or more biological explanations for the origin of attraction.
Responses may include, but are not limited to:
- the role of neurotransmitters (eg Fisher, 2004) and hormones
- evolutionary explanations (eg Buss, 1996;
mechanisms of attraction in the brain, eg findings suggesting the hypothalamus triggers physiological arousal;
the influence of pheromones eg Wedekind's sweaty T-shirt study)
- studies on male ritual behaviour in animals.
Discussion of the biological explanation of attraction may include, but is not limited to:
- contradictory findings
- methodological considerations
- gender considerations
- empirical evidence
- alternative explanations of attraction, such as social and/or cognitive
- relevance of animal research.
Candidates may address one or a small number of biological origins of attraction in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biological origins of attraction in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
To what extent do two or more cognitive factors influence human relationships?
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the merits or otherwise of the argument that (two or more) cognitive factors influence human relationships.
Candidates may address any aspects of the psychology of human relationships option (for example, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and/or violence).
Candidates may choose to discuss the extent to which cognitive factors influence one or more aspects of human relationships. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
- cognitive dissonance (Batson et al.'s (1981) empathy-altruism model of helping behaviour)
- self-esteem (Kiesler and Baral's (1970) study of the role of self-esteem in attraction)
- social learning theory (Bandura 1961,1963, 1965)
- attribution (Markey and Markey, 2007)
- language/communication (Gottmann, 1977).
It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or sociocultural factors in order to address the command term "to what extent".
Candidates may discuss two cognitive factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cognitive factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of the role of communication in maintaining relationships. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
Responses may include, but are not limited to, the following aspects of communication:
- content of communication (ratio between positive and negative communication)
- communication patterns tend to differ across marital types (interdependent, independent and separate)
- amount of communication
- self-disclosure.
Additional points of discussion may include, but are not limited to:
- cultural biases
- difficulties of carrying out research on communication styles
- ethical concerns when conducting research.
Relevant studies and/or theories may include, but are not limited to:
- gender-based communication styles (Tannen, 1990)
- the importance of self-disclosure (Altman and Taylor's social penetration theory)
- the role of micro-expressions (Gottman and Levinson, 1986).
Candidates should not simply describe theories or studies, but show how they help us to better understand the role of communication in maintaining relationships.
Discuss the effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of two strategies for reducing violence.
A number of different strategies may be included. A strategy is any plan of action or a programme for reducing violence.
Examples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:
- Olweus, 1993 - a community based strategy
- MACS, 2002 - a community based strategy
- zero tolerance anti-bullying programmes
- Aronson, 1979 - jigsaw classrooms against bullying
- Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982 empathy training
- Figueiredo et al., 2007 - computer based strategies to improve empathy.
Discussion of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:
- cultural issues
- gender issues
- ethical issues
- long-term versus short-term effects
- the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of a strategy.
If a candidate discusses more than two strategies for reducing violence, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. However, candidates may address other strategies for reducing violence and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.
If a candidate discusses only one strategy for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization.