IB Psychology SL 3 Contexts Questions

Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "to what extent" requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors influencing abnormal behaviour. It may be appropriate and useful for candidates to address the influence of other factors (for example, environmental factors) in order to respond to the command term "to what extent".

Anxiety disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders will most likely be presented. It is, however, acceptable to use other examples of disorders or abnormal behaviours.

Biological factors could include, but are not limited to:
- the role of genes (for example, correlational studies related to eating disorders)
- hormones (for example, the cortisol theory of depression)
- neurotransmitters (for example, the serotonin hypothesis)
- evolutionary theories (for example, preparedness with phobias).

Candidates could choose to provide a general response on the extent to which biological factors influence abnormal behaviour or they could provide a response discussing the extent to which biological factors influence one specific disorder.

Candidates may address one or a small number of biological factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biological factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more factors influencing brain development.

Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
- neuroplasticity
- gene expression
- environmental factors eg stress, neglect, nutrition, trauma
- cognitive factors eg language acquisition, problem solving and executive function, memory tasks
- maturational theory of brain development.

Responses to this question may also use Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories. For these responses, marks should be awarded depending on how effectively responses link these to brain development.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Waber's (2007);
Gogtay et al.'s (2004) longitudinal studies of brain development using MRI scans
- Chugani et al.'s (2001) study on developmental changes in brain serotonin synthesis capacity
- Johnson and Newport's (1989) study on maturational predispositions for learning a language
- Baird et al.'s (2002);
Diamond's (1991) studies on the effect of maturation on the frontal lobe and the development of object permanence
- Bell and Fox's (1996) study on crawling experience related to changes in the cortical organization during infancy using EEG
- Danelli et al.'s (2012) case study on functional neuroplasticity
- Gieldd et al.'s (2004) longitudinal study on brain development across developmental stages
- Rosenzweig, Bennett and Diamond's (1972) study on environmental effects on brain development
- Bremner's (2003) study on how early sexual abuse correlated with the atrophy of the hippocampus.

Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
- methodological and ethical considerations
- practical applications and implications of the findings
- the accuracy and clarity of the concepts
- assumptions and biases
- supporting and/or contradictory evidence.

Responses referring to research on animals, such as Rosenzweig study should be linked to human brain development. Responses that do not explicitly make any link to human brain development should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion C: use of research to support the answer. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the mark bands independently and could achieve up to full marks.

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.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.

Thinking and decision-making are closely related cognitive processes and candidates do not need to make a distinction between the two.

Candidates may address examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:
- specific biases (eg confirmation, optimism, selective attention)
- illusory correlation
- effects of framing
- heuristics (eg anchoring, availability, representativeness).

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- studies on heuristics: Strack and Mussweiler (1997) and Englisch and Mussweiler (2001) on anchoring bias;
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects;
Tversky and Kahneman (1973) on availability heuristic;
Tversky and Kahneman (1973) on representativeness heuristic.
- confirmation bias: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).
- halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)
- illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Schwann (1978)
- matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) - participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- Applications of findings - for example, in marketing or in understanding health-related behaviour
- Cultural and gender considerations
- Difficulties in studying cognitive processes - for example isolation of variables and measuring cognition;
artificial nature of experimental research
- Explanations of why cognitive biases occur - for example linking to Dual Process Theory
- Implications of the findings
- Methodological and ethical considerations.

Candidates may discuss one bias in thinking or decision making in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss more than one bias in thinking and/or decision making in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.