Practise IB Psychology HL contexts across health, development, relationships and social influence, selecting studies, methods and balanced evaluation.
To what extent are one or more health problems influenced by biological factors?
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.
Discuss one or more factors influencing brain development.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more factors influencing brain development.
Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
- neuroplasticity
- genetic factors e.g. genetic similarities, epigenetics
- environmental factors e.g. stress, neglect, trauma recovery
- cognitive factors eg problem-solving, cognitive stimulation, language acquisition, executive function development
- maturational theory of brain development.
Responses to this question may also use Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories. For these responses, marks should be awarded depending on how effectively responses link these to brain development.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Waber's (2007); Gogtay et al.'s (2004) longitudinal studies of brain development using MRI scans
- Chugani et al.'s (2001) study on developmental changes in brain serotonin synthesis capacity
- Johnson and Newport's (1989) study on maturational predispositions for learning a language
- Baird et al.'s (2002); Diamond's (1991) studies on the effect of maturation on the frontal lobe and the development of object permanence
- Bell and Fox's (1996) study on crawling experience related to changes in the cortical organization during infancy using EEG
- Danelli et al.'s (2012) case study on functional neuroplasticity
- Gieldd et al.'s (2004) longitudinal study on brain development across developmental stages
- Rosenzweig et al.'s (1972) study on environmental effects on brain development
- Bremner's (2003) study on how early sexual abuse correlated with the atrophy of the hippocampus.
Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations
- practical applications and implications of the findings
- the accuracy and clarity of theoretical concepts
- accuracy of assumptions and the role of biases
- interpretation/application of research/concepts
- supporting and/or contradictory evidence.
- comparison of different factors' effects
Responses referring to research on animals, such as Rosenzweig et al.'s (1972) study should be linked to human brain development. Responses that do not explicitly make any link to human brain development should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion C: use of research to support the answer. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
Candidates may discuss one factor influencing brain development in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
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.
Discuss one or more biases in thinking and/or decision-making.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.
Thinking and decision-making are closely related cognitive processes and candidates do not need to make a distinction between the two.
Candidates may address examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:
- specific biases (eg confirmation, optimism, selective attention)
- illusory correlation
- effects of framing
- heuristics (eg anchoring, availability, representativeness)
Examples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Chapman and Chapman (1969); Stone et al. (1997) on confirmation bias
- Englisch and Mussweiler (2001); Strack and Mussweiler (1997) on anchoring bias
- Hamilton and Gifford (1976); Snyder and Swann (1978); Song and Schwarz (2007) on illusory correlation
- Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects
- Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991); Verhulst et al (2010); Palmer and Peterson (2012) on halo effect
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- Applications of findings - for example, in marketing or in understanding health-related behaviour
- Cultural and gender differences in cognitive biases
- Difficulties in studying cognitive processes - eg isolation of variables and measuring cognition; artificial nature of experimental research
- Explanations of why cognitive biases occur - eg linking to Dual Process Theory
Candidates may address one bias in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biases in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.