Practise IB Psychology SL 2.1.5 by explaining brain research methods and evaluating how biological evidence supports conclusions about behaviour in psychological studies.
Explain how genetic inheritance may influence one behaviour, with reference to one relevant research study.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands on the next page when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of how genetic inheritance may influence a specific behaviour, making reference to one study.
Candidates should refer to a single study which demonstrates the role of genetic inheritance on one specific behaviour. Many of these studies may be twin or family studies.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- The Minnesota Twin Study of intelligence (Bouchard et al., 1990)
- Christiansen’s (1977) study of criminal behaviour in Danish twins
- Nurnberger and Gershon (1982) on depression
- Kendler et al. (1991) on bulimia
- Stunkard et al. (1990) on obesity.
Explanations of the role of genetic inheritance may refer to concordance rates, specific research regarding the properties of specific genes, or findings from twin studies.
If a candidate makes reference to research from evolutionary psychology, the focus of the response must be on how genetic inheritance influences the behaviour.
If a candidate explains how genetic inheritance may influence more than one behaviour, credit should be given only to the first behaviour.
If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without making reference to the influence of genetic inheritance on behaviour, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3 marks].
If a candidate explains the influence of genetic inheritance without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [4 marks] should be awarded.
Section A markbands
Marks Level descriptor
0 The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 to 3 There is an attempt to answer the question, but knowledge and understanding is limited, often inaccurate, or of marginal relevance to the question.
4 to 6 The question is partially answered. Knowledge and understanding is accurate but limited. Either the command term is not effectively addressed or the response is not sufficiently explicit in answering the question.
7 to 8 The question is answered in a focused and effective manner and meets the demands of the command term. The response is supported by appropriate and accurate knowledge and understanding of research.