IB Psychology HL 3.3 Human Relationships Topic Practice

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.

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

Some strategies that may be considered are:
- teaching social skills (Toch, 1980)
- "jigsaw classroom" (Aronson, 1979)
- empathy training (e.g. Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982)
- computer simulations (Figueiredo et al., 2007).

Responses may approach the command term "evaluate" in two different ways. They may evaluate research related to reducing violence or provide a general evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy for reducing violence. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

If a candidate evaluates more than one strategy, credit should be given only to the first evaluation.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for knowledge and comprehension.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of factors influencing bystanderism.

Bystanderism can be defined as the tendency of a person not to intervene despite awareness of another person's need.

Factors may include, but are not limited to:
- Latané and Darley's (1968) research which looked at the role of the number of people available to help (diffusion of responsibility) as well as the informational social influence (pluralistic ignorance)
- cognitive dissonance and arousal (Piliavin, 1981)
- the costs versus benefits of helping (Piliavin et al., 1969)
- personality and/or social norms (Oliner and Oliner, 1989)
- cultural norms (Levin, 1990).

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- cultural considerations
- role of historical context
- methodological considerations
- empirical evidence
- arguments for the existence of altruism
- application of programmes to promote prosocial behaviours (eg Zimbardo's heroism project).

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