IB Psychology HL 3 Contexts Questions
Practise IB Psychology HL contexts across health, development, relationships and social influence, selecting studies, methods and balanced evaluation.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2027
- Course
- IB Psychology
- Level
- HL
Exam points
- Construct multi-level explanations of health, development, relationships and learning while distinguishing risk, correlation and causation.
- Evaluate longitudinal, intervention, cross-cultural and technology-related evidence for stress, development, relationships and cognition with explicit validity and ethics limits.
- Compare prevention, intervention and relationship claims using sampling, cultural validity, individual variation and methodological limitations.
- Analyse complex psychological evidence without overclaiming causal, developmental or cross-cultural conclusions.
Covered syllabus points
Question 1
[Maximum number: 22]
To what extent do biological factors influence health-related behaviour?
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-related behaviour.
Stress, obesity, substance abuse, and other health-related behaviours are equally acceptable for answers to the question. Candidates may approach health-related behaviour as a whole or use specific examples of health-related behaviour. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Biological factors may include, but are not limited to:
- evolutionary explanations
- genetic predisposition
- the biological effects of drug treatment for addictive behaviour
- the neurobiology of food addiction (for example, Volkow et al., 2002).
Each factor that is identified should be connected to health-related behaviour. Where this connection is not made, no marks should be awarded for the mere listing or description of biological factors.
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 may address a small number of biological factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biological factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Question 2
[Maximum number: 22]
Evaluate one or more theories of brain development.
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.
Question 3
[Maximum number: 9]
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.
Question 4
[Maximum number: 9]
Describe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.
Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:
- the aim of the study linked to a cognitive bias.
- a description of the research method used
- description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.
- use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)
- description of the use of triangulation in a case study
- identification of the sample that was used;
however, precise sample sizes are not required
- controls used by the researcher
- materials used in the study
- the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Anchoring bias: Englich and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)
- Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) - participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.
- Confirmation bias: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).
- Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
- Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
- Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Schwann (1978),
- Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) - participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.
- Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973)
If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description.
All question bank results loaded