IB Psychology SL 3.2.4 Theory of mind Question Bank

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "evaluate" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies on the development of empathy and/or theory of mind. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Bischof-Köhler 's (1991) 'The Development of Empathy in Infants'
- van der Mark et al.'s (2002) 'Development of Empathy in Girls During the Second Year of Life: Associations with Parenting, Attachment, and Temperament'
- McDonald and Messinger's (2011) 'The Development of Empathy: How, when and why'
- Happé's (1995) 'The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism'
- Peterson et al.'s (2016) 'Peer Social Skills and Theory of Mind in Children with Autism, Deafness, or Typical Development'
- Meltzoff's (1995) 'Representation of intentions in human children'
- Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith's (1985) 'Understanding false beliefs in human children'

Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations
- areas of uncertainty
- gender and cultural considerations
- supporting and/or contradictory evidence
- contrary and supporting findings
- alternative explanations or factors
- practical applications
- implications of the findings

Responses referring to animal research are acceptable as long as they are explicitly linked to human behaviour.

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.

Candidates may evaluate one study in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a greater number of studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0] for this criterion. If the response identifies which studies will be evaluated but there is also extra information that is not relevant or necessary for the specific question then [1] should be awarded. Responses that are clearly focused on evaluating one or more studies should be awarded [2].

Marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies. Marks for criterion B should be awarded as follows:
- 1-2 General knowledge of topic (development of empathy and/or theory of mind)
- 3-4 Knowledge of general research terms and concepts is provided but lacks detail. Some minor errors might be present
- 5-6 Relevant knowledge of specific research methods material is utilized and concepts are defined within the context of the specific study.

Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question - this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.

Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.