IB Psychology SL 3.1.4 Environmental Factors Questions

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors that influence the development of resilience.

Relevant risk/protective factors may include, but are not limited to:
- connections to competent and caring adults in the family and community
- cognitive skills (such as intelligence and problem-solving)
- self-regulation skills
- positive views of self
- motivation to be effective in the environment
- genetic influence.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Masten and Coatsworth's (1998);
Pettit et al.'s (1997) studies on positive relationships of at least one supportive parent or caregiver
- McRae et al.'s (2012) study on the ability to monitor and assess negative thoughts and replace them with more positive ones
- Karreman and Vingerhoets's (2012) study on the role of attachment style on resilience
- Ozbay et al.'s (2008) study on the link between seeking social support and resilience
- Leontopoulou's (2010);
Southwick et al.'s (2005) studies on how prosocial behaviour and altruism are associated with resilience
- Russo et al.'s (2012);
Feder et al.'s (2009) studies on a range of human genes linked to resilient phenotypes
- Koluchova's study (1972).

Critical discussion may include but is not limited to:
- variable-focused approach versus person-focused approach in the study of resilience
- implications for promoting resilience in child rearing
- possible gender difference in emotional regulation/cognitive reappraisal
- methodological and ethical considerations
- alternative factors and/or explanations.

Candidates may offer content concerning negative factors influencing the development of resilience - e.g. the impact of poverty, malnutrition or abuse on further development and argue that this has a negative impact on resilience. This approach is acceptable as long as it is clearly linked to the development of resilience.

Candidates may address one factor to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address more than one factor to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are acceptable.