IB Psychology SL 3 Contexts Questions
Practise IB Psychology SL context questions across health, development, relationships and social influence, selecting studies for each command term.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2027
- Course
- IB Psychology
- Level
- SL
Exam points
- Apply biological, cognitive and sociocultural explanations to health, illness behaviour, development and relationships in context.
- Compare stress, coping, development, relationship and learning evidence through design, ethics, sampling and validity.
- Evaluate prevention, intervention and relationship claims while recognising culture, individual differences and contextual limits.
- Explain how research evidence supports or limits psychological accounts of health, development, relationships and cognition.
Covered syllabus points
Question 1
[Maximum number: 22]
Examine how one or more biological factor(s) influence either one specific anxiety disorder or one specific eating disorder.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "examine" requires candidates to consider the influence of biological factors in ways that uncover the relationship between the chosen biological factor(s) and the selected disorder.
Responses are likely to refer to biological factors, such as:
- the role of genes
- brain damage
- biochemical factors (e.g. hormones and neurotransmitters).
Support for the role of biological factors in disorders comes from research studies investigating the effectiveness of psychopharmacological treatment. A large and growing range of drugs has been developed to deal with anxiety and eating disorders. Although these drugs are beneficial, it is not clear if they address the root causes of such disorders or simply mask the symptoms.
Cognitive and sociocultural factors may be legitimately considered if they are shown to influence, or be influenced by, biological factors.
Responses that examine biological factors of depression or any mood disorder should not be awarded any marks.
Candidates may examine one biological factor in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine more than one biological factor in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable. Marks should be awarded based on the quality of the examination presented.
If a candidate examines how one or more biological factor(s) influence one affective disorder or schizophrenia, no marks should be awarded.
If a candidate examines one or more biological factors in relation to more than one specific anxiety disorder and/or one specific eating disorder, credit should be given only to the examination of the first disorder.
Question 2
[Maximum number: 22]
Examine how one or more biological factors influence human development.
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "examine" requires candidates to consider how biological factors affect human development in a way that uncovers the interrelationships of this issue.
Responses may refer to biological factors including, but not limited to:
- the effects of maturation of the nervous system and cognitive development
- Waber's (2007) MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) studies of normal brain development
- the role of neuroplasticity in brain development
- the role of stress hormones on faulty development
- the role of sex hormones
- Bowlby's theory that attachment is innate.
Evidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:
- discussing the issue of reductionism
- asserting that human development is the result of complex interactions between biological, sociocultural and cognitive factors
- evaluation of empirical research
- methodological and ethical considerations.
Although the focus of the answer should be on biological factors, candidates may discuss how cognitive and sociocultural factors interact with biological factors. Biology and experience are assumed to act together to produce the normal course of development (eg when examining the influence of gender on human development, candidates could assert the presence of an interaction between sociocultural and biological factors).
Candidates may address one biological factor in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address more than one biological factor in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Question 3
[Maximum number: 22]
Discuss acculturation.
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of acculturation.
Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:
- Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study of acculturation and assimilation
- Wang et al.'s (2010) study of acculturative stress in Asian Americans
- Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study of acculturative stress in Latino adults
- Berry et al.'s (2006) study of acculturative stress in immigrant youth
- Shah et al.'s (2015) study of acculturation, obesity and cardiovascular risk
- Torres et al.'s (2012) correlational study of integration and disorientation in Latino-Americans
Discussion points may include but are not limited to:
- implications of the findings
- methodological considerations
- difficulties establishing cause-and-effect relationships in correlational research
- external and internal validity of research
- generalizability of the research
- areas of uncertainty.
Question 4
[Maximum number: 9]
Describe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.
Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "describe" requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.
Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:
- the aim of the study is linked to a cognitive bias.
- a description of the research method used
- description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.
- use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)
- description of the use of triangulation in a case study
- identification of the sample that was used;
however, precise sample sizes are not required
- controls used by the researcher
- materials used in the study
- the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Anchoring bias: Englisch and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)
- Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) - participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.
- Confirmation bias: Wason (1960), Chapman (1969), Stone(1997), Darley and Gross(1983).
- Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)
- Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
- Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Swann (1978)
- Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) - participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.
- Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973).
If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description.
All question bank results loaded