Practise biological, cognitive and sociocultural psychology with SL questions that explain concepts, apply studies and evaluate evidence across the content units.
Explain one compliance technique.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of one compliance technique.
Acceptable compliance techniques include, but are not limited to:
- reciprocity
- foot-in-the-door
- door-in-the-face
- low balling
- bait and switch.
If a candidate explains more than one compliance technique, credit should be given only to the first explanation.
Although an example should be given to illustrate the technique, it is not required that the example be an empirical study.
Candidates may address principles and/or factors such as evolutionary arguments, social comparison, cognitive dissonance, cultural norms, goal gradients (commitment) and/or preservation of self-image as part of an explanation of the compliance technique. However, if a candidate explains factors without reference to a specific compliance technique, a maximum of [3 marks] should be awarded.
If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without identifying or explaining a compliance technique, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3 marks].
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.
Evaluate the use of two brain imaging technologies in investigating the relationship between biological factors and behaviour.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to address the strengths and limitations of brain imaging technologies. Candidates need to clearly identify two brain imaging technologies, give examples of how they have been used in research, and then evaluate their use. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
Examples of brain imaging technologies could include, but are not limited to:
- EEG (for example, Davidson et al., 2004, on meditation)
- TCI (transcranial imaging) in studies of PTSD
- PET (for example, Raine et al., 1997, on violent behaviour;
use of PET in the study of Alzheimer's disease)
- MRI (for example, Corkin, 1997, study of HM)
- fMRI (for example, Harris and Fiske, 2006, on prejudice;
Wang et al., 2007, on stress).
It is important that candidates evaluate the use of the technologies, and not simply evaluate studies.
If a candidate evaluates more than two brain imaging technologies, credit should be given only to the first two evaluations.
If a candidate evaluates only one brain imaging technology, 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.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
Evaluate research (theories and/or studies) on conformity to group norms.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal of the strengths and limitations of research on conformity. 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:
- informational/normative social influence theory
- social comparison theory
- bystander effect
- groupthink.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Sherif (1935) testing conformity with autokinetic effect illusion
- Asch (1951,1952,1956) testing conformity under unambiguous conditions
- Crutchfield (1955) on the influence of intellectual competence and personality
- Moscovici et al. (1969,1976,1985) on minority influence
- Kagitcibasi's (1984) study on cultural norms and conformity
- Berry's (1967) study on the cultural differences in conformity.
Evaluation may address issues such as:
- methodological, cultural, ethical and gender considerations
- empirical support
- applications of the theory and/or empirical findings
- contrary explanations or findings.
If research addressing obedience, rather than conformity, is discussed, no marks should be awarded for this. No marks should be awarded for a discussion of the Stanford Prison Study unless it clearly addresses the influence of societal roles on conformity.
Candidates may evaluate a small number of theories and/or studies in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of theories and/or studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate evaluates only one theory/study, 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.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5 marks] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2 marks] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
Describe the function of one hormone in human behaviour.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of the function of one hormone in human behaviour.
A hormone is defined as a chemical messenger of the endocrine system and is transported by blood to distal target cells. Although hormones may act as neurotransmitters by activating receptor sites within the synapse, it is the origin of the chemical that classifies it as a hormone. Hormones include:
- adrenaline/epinephrine (McGaugh and Cahill, 1995)
- estrogen (Sherwin, 1994)
- glucocorticoids/cortisol (Newcomer, 1999)
- melatonin (Rosenthal, 1987)
- neuropeptide Y (Morgan et al., 2000)
- oxytocin (Baumgartner, 2008)
- testosterone (Booth, 1998).
Any aspect of human behaviour (eg aggression, depression, stress, sexual interest) is acceptable as long as the response focuses on how the hormone influences the particular behaviour.
Responses that address the influence of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, GABA and acetylcholine should not be awarded marks.
If a candidate describes a study using animals but does not explicitly link the study to human behaviour, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
If a candidate describes the function of more than one hormone, credit should be given only to the description of the first hormone.
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.