Discuss the role of communication in personal relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of communication in personal relationships.
\nCommunication plays a relevant role at all stages of the development of personal relationships. Examples of theories and models explaining the role of communication in relationships may include, but are not limited to: social penetration theory, approaches based on the concept of attributional styles and approaches based on the concept of patterns of accommodation.
\nCandidates may address specific types of personal relationships (eg romantic, peer, parent–adolescent) or personal relationships in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExamples of studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of factors that explain the role of communication in relationships in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may consider a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nQuestion 10 was a popular question. Candidates generally addressed communication within romantic relationships and were aware of theories and research studies that were relevant. Popular choices ere Social Penetration Theory, The Four Horsemen of the apocalypse and Attribution Theory in communication research. Critical thinking was a bit uneven, with some candidates doing a good job of discussing implications and other considerations, while others only briefly looked at methodological considerations.
\nDiscuss prejudice and/or discrimination in relation to group dynamics.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of prejudice and/or discrimination in relation to group dynamics.
\nGroup dynamics may include in-group dynamics as well as inter-group dynamics.
\nCandidates may address topics such as, but not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nQuestion 11 was likewise popular. Candidates looked at stereotypes, inter-group discrimination and social identity theory fairly knowledgeably. Several studies were used and well presented. Critical discussion was again uneven, with some excellent discussion and other shallow attempts.
\nEvaluate one or more research methods used in studies investigating social responsibility.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more research methods used in studies investigating social responsibility by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the research method(s). Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of research may include, but are not limited to:
\nA critical evaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nFor questions that ask for evaluation of research methods, marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relevant for research methodology. Overall, this includes some knowledge of the specific topic (social responsibility) and general knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics (for example definitions of relevant terms in research methodology or ethics in research).
\nMarks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a study/studies and assess how well the student linked aspects of the study to the question.
\nQuestion 12 was popular, but not evenly addressed. As with question 6, some candidates did a very good job of identifying useful research methods in social research and evaluating the method itself, while others identified research studies and evaluated the study while never addressing the question's requirements.
\nEvaluate one classification system for psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one classification system for psychological disorders by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the classification system. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nClassification systems for psychological disorders include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch relating to previous versions of the classification systems should be accepted if made relevant to the answer. For example, Rosenthal-based responses will need to be read and assessed carefully in terms of whether they have been shaped to issues specifically on the nature and use of classifications systems.
\nCritical evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may address other classification systems and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate the classification system addressed in the response.
\nIf 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.
\nThe DSM classification system was the most popular route for those attempting this question. Generally responses to this question were not very well done, as candidates tended to talk about classification per se rather than focusing on a set classification system as required. Many candidates also treated this as a potential 'Evaluate Rosenhan's study' question, and wrote an essay detailing and evaluating the study, but often with little focus on DSM II. Well-written responses reflected rather detailed knowledge of classification systems, especially the DSM-5, and the ability to evaluate the system.
\nDiscuss two research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.
\nRelevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch that can be used to support the response includes, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than two research methods, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. Candidates may address other research methods and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss one or both of the two main methods addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one research method, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nResponses may refer to brain imaging techniques (MRI, PET scans) and be awarded marks for these as long as this is clearly used as part of a description/evaluation of the research method but not as a method by itself.
\nResponses may also refer to any of the following: twin studies, adoption studies, family studies, longitudinal/cross-sectional studies, cross-cultural studies and be awarded marks for these as long as this is used as part of a chosen research method (not as a method by itself).
\nResponses referring to meta-analysis are not acceptable and should not gain marks.
\nResponses referring to different types of experiment are not acceptable as two separate methods, as well as other similar examples (e.g. semi-structured interviews and focus groups cannot be considered as two different research methods).
\nResponses describing and discussing studies but not focusing on research methods should be awarded up to a maximum of [2] for criteria B and D. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nWith some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as selected research methods were not valid.
\nIn high quality responses candidates chose appropriate research methods including:
\nStrengths were discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of various research methods. Weaknesses included incorrectly identifying research methods, using studies that were not acceptable (e.g. longitudinal studies, scanning methods, twin studies or meta-analysis), and discussing and evaluating studies rather than methods. In addition, at times candidates chose subtypes of one research method which was not acceptable (for example choosing laboratory and natural experiments).
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations in relation to the treatment of one or more psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of ethical considerations in relation to the treatment of psychological disorders.
\nRelevant ethical considerations can include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch that can be used to support the discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nExaminers noticed this question was less popular than the other two questions in the Abnormal psychology section. There were some pleasing responses which indicated some appreciation of ethical considerations concerned with treatments/therapies. Stronger responses reflected an understanding of ethical considerations in treatment, as well as knowledge of treatment methods. Weaknesses included discussing ethical considerations in the studies used as examples rather than discussing the ethics of the treatment itself.
\nDiscuss the development of empathy and/or theory of mind.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the development of empathy and/or theory of mind. Candidates may discuss only the development of a theory of mind or only the development of empathy or may discuss the development of both of them. These approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThe theory of mind is the ability to understand and attribute a particular mental state to a certain behaviour. Empathy is a similar concept but slightly different in that it refers to the ability to infer another's emotional state.
\nResearch relevant to the development of a theory of mind may include, but is not limited to:
\nResearch relevant to the development of empathy may include, but is not limited to:
\nRelevant areas of discussion may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses referring to animal research are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour.
\nResponses referring to cognitive development are not acceptable and should not earn marks unless specifically tied to the development of theory of mind/empathy.
\nDevelopment can be both positive and negative, so content concerning factors that hinder the development of Theory of Mind and/or empathy are acceptable and should be awarded marks.
\nVery strong candidates answered this question particularly well, while candidates who were not as well prepared tended to do quite poorly here. Strengths included understanding the difference between empathy and theory of mind, and the ability to couple that with relevant studies (again speaking in terms of strong candidates). The weakness of some candidates was totally misunderstanding the question and writing responses on other topics in Developmental psychology.
\nDiscuss one or more factors that influence the development of resilience.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors that influence the development of resilience.
\nRelevant risk/protective factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates 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.
\nThis was not a popular choice. Strengths included the correct identification of studies to illustrate resilience, or lack thereof. Focus was often on PTSD, with evidence of well selected studies that were focused on the question. Weaknesses included a lack of general knowledge regarding the development of resilience.
\nTo what extent is development as a learner influenced by biological factors?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors on development as a learner.
\nIn order to respond to the command term \"to what extent\", it is appropriate and useful for candidates to address how cognitive development is the result of complex interactions between biological and sociocultural factors. There appears to be an interaction between biological factors and the experience gained by sociocultural factors, which influences our development.
\nCandidates may address biological factors in relation to specific aspects of cognitive development (for example memory, intelligence, language or attention) or address biological factors in relation to cognitive development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nResponses may refer to biological factors including but not limited to:
\nCandidates 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.
\nThis was also not a popular option. Occasionally examiners reported reading quite inspiring responses indicative of good teaching. Such responses tended to focus on brain growth and cognitive development, with evidence of well selected studies that were focused on the question. However, a rather large number of examiners reported that some responses to this question provided Piaget & Vygotsky essays that made them think that was what candidates had prepared for. Although this question hadn't come up in this session candidates still opted to 'unload' the response anyway. Unfortunately, such responses even tended not to shape the material presented to the biological aspects of Piaget's theory. This suggested poor understanding of the question (and of the biological nature of Piaget's theory).
\nDiscuss one or more sociocultural factors in promoting health.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of sociocultural factors in promoting health.
\nHealth promotion programmes are those initiatives designed to assist people in gaining control over and improving their own health. These may be public or government programmes, or may be privately sponsored. In addition, these programmes may be developed on an individual, local, national, or international level.
\nRelevant sociocultural factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies include but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss negative factors influencing promotion of health – for example discussing the impact of poverty, peer pressure, stigmatization or conformity/adherence to sociocultural practices/norms.
\nResponses referring to the influence of sociocultural factors on health issues (e.g. obesity, stress, addiction) are not acceptable and should not be awarded marks.
\nAlthough few candidates attempted this question, stronger candidates formed a good discussion of sociocultural factors in health promotion. Weaker candidates made a more general attempt, discussing health promotion in general.
\nDiscuss the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.
\nThe biopsychosocial model uses a holistic approach to understanding health and illness that incorporates sociocultural factors, psychological factors, biological factors and individual behaviours.
\nThe biopsychosocial model includes the following factors:
\nRelevant research includes, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThis was the least popular question in this paper and none of the examiners provided recorded reading enough responses to this question to have valid views on strengths and weaknesses.
\nDiscuss one or more explanations of health problems.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of one or more explanations of health problems.
\nThe health problem(s) likely to be presented include: stress, addiction, obesity, chronic pain, and/or sexual health.
\nExplanations for health problems may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies include but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThis was the most popular question for the Health psychology option. Obesity was a popular focus, with biological and sociocultural explanations frequently being offered. Answers ranged from rudimentary to quite good, where knowledge and understanding were presented with clarity and studies were used to draw out salient critical points.
\nStrengths for this question included candidates choosing mostly appropriate health problems and studies. Weaknesses appeared as a lack of critical thinking when responding to this question.
\nDiscuss co-operation and/or competition in groups.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of cooperation and competition in groups.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was a very popular question. Strengths included correct discussion of social identity theory and realistic conflict theory, as well as corresponding studies as illustrations. Weaknesses were few here, but some candidates had problems evaluating the findings of research in this area. Weak responses tended to provide detailed account of relevant studies without linking them to the question.
\nDiscuss one or more studies investigating the formation of personal relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more studies investigating the formation of personal relationships.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses referring to studies on maintenance, changes, dissolution or end of a relationship are not acceptable and should not be awarded marks.
\nThis was another popular question. Candidates generated answers based upon all three approaches to behaviour, and generally used appropriate and relevant research to illustrate. Discussion was also mainly relevant. Biological explanations were popular, especially those focused on evolutionary explanations. Buss's studies and Wedekind's study were popular choices to back up such responses and were often well tailored to the question.
\nExaminers occasionally reported that some lower quality responses focused upon maintenance or ending of relationships, rather than formation.
\nDiscuss one or more factors influencing by-standerism.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more factors influencing by-standerism.
\nFactors influencing by-standerism may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was also a popular question. Overall, responses reflected that candidates understood by-standerism and the classic studies that illustrate the concept. Most who attempted this question did fairly well.
\nIn the majority of cases, reasons for by-standerism were identified, though not always fully explained/described. Weaker responses tended to focus more on presenting relevant studies. In addition, evaluation tended to be more of the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, rather than focusing on by-standerism per se.
\nOutline one link between genes and behaviour with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of a link between genes and behaviour with reference to a relevant study.
\nExamples of links between genes and behaviour include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate does not refer to a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [5].
\nIf a candidate makes reference to a relevant study without making the connection to the link outlined, award up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate outlines more than one example of a link between genes and behaviour, credit should be given only to the first link outlined.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one relevant study, credit should be given only for the first study.
\nHL:
\nCandidates that performed well in this question were able to clearly identify a relevant link between genes and behaviour, intelligence or depression in the vast majority of responses, through the use of a relevant study which was usually quite well described. These responses were able to address the command term well and give a brief account of how genes or one specific gene were linked to behaviour so that the response was well focused on the demands of the question. Weaker responses to this question failed to adequately address a clear link between genes and behaviour and focused instead on lengthy descriptions of genes and heredity followed by a study that did not effectively demonstrate the link to behaviour.
\nThere was a surprisingly high number of responses unfortunately that provided either completely irrelevant studies from the Biological approach (for example, studies of hormones or neurotransmitters) or made reference to studies showing the influence of environmental factors on behaviour (e.g. Bandura's study). For this reason, there were some candidates that were awarded zero marks for this question.
\nSome candidates used animal studies to support their response to this question with no more than a passing reference to how the findings could be related to human behaviour.
\nSL:
\nMany candidates were unable to outline a link between genes and behaviour in any detail and this tended to be done implicitly through the use of twin or kinship study descriptions. However, stronger candidates included details on the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins and the use of concordance rates or alternatively, how to investigate heredity through the use of family and adoption studies. Others effectively detailed specific genes and their alleles and linked these to human behaviour.
\nThe majority could identify a relevant study and these tended to be summarized in good detail. The highest marks were usually awarded to descriptions of Caspi et al. (2003) with detailed descriptions of the link of the 5-HTT gene with depressive behaviour. Several candidates used twin studies; with Bouchard (1990) and Kendler (2006) being the most popular choice. However, only a minority of these responses outlined the link between genes and behaviour effectively. As a result, many candidates could not access the highest markband.
\nUnfortunately, a significant majority of the candidates who selected Wedekind (1995) failed to make the link with the MHC gene, instead concentrating on the smell of the T-shirts and attraction, so these tended to be low scoring answers.
\nDescribe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.
\nCandidate 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:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description.
\nHL:
\nA wide range of cognitive biases were addressed for this question; the most commonly encountered however were anchoring bias, availability heuristic and framing effect bias. Stronger responses to this question were those that correctly identified a cognitive bias, briefly outlined what the bias entailed and then provided a clear, accurate and detailed description of a relevant study that investigated the specific bias. Such responses were fully focused on the demands of the question and could show explicitly how the findings of the study illustrated the bias. Importantly, the stronger responses provided sufficient detail of the procedure of the selected study.
\nMost responses to this question fell into the mid-band range of marks as candidates had unfocused responses with a good deal of unnecessary information referring to the Dual Process Model and system 1 thinking at the outset of the exam answer at the expense of the study description. Therefore, this meant that much of the response was redundant and the study description played a secondary role. Weaker responses identified an inappropriate cognitive bias such as in-group bias or referred to stereotypes (e.g. social or gender) as an example of a bias. Some candidates could accurately identify a bias but provided a study related generally to thinking and decision-making but not directly investigating a bias.
\nSL:
\nThis question asked candidates to describe a study. Some candidates instead wrote long responses about system 1 and 2 thinking, heuristics and cognitive bias, with very little detail on the study. In contrast, some responses were able to correctly identify the aim, procedure, and findings of a study, then use the conclusion to demonstrate conceptual understanding of the cognitive bias. However, many candidates did not describe the procedures in adequate detail or make use of terminology linked to research methodology e.g. the design, independent/dependent variables or controls.
\nBy far the most popular cognitive bias was anchoring bias, with Tversky and Kahneman (1974), Strack and Mussweiler (1997), and Englisch and Mussweiler (2001) being used most prolifically, but varying in detail. Most responses fell into the middle markband based on the detail of descriptions of the procedures of the relevant study.
\nSome candidates confused their biases, instead explaining another in its place. Common examples included framing effect, illusory correlation, confirmation bias and the peak-end rule. There was also some confusion with regards to stereotypes, cultural and gender biases as examples of cognitive biases.
\nDescribe one study investigating acculturation.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating acculturation.
\nCandidate 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:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses acculturation but does not describe a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nHL:
\nThe stronger responses provided a clear, accurate and detailed description of a relevant study investigating acculturation where candidates successfully and explicitly showed how the findings of the selected piece of research illustrated the process of acculturation. These responses tended to focus on the following studies: Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study of variables predicting acculturative stress in Asian Americans, Wang et al.'s (2010) survey of Cuban American University students or Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study of Latino cultures and protective factors against acculturative stress. The majority of response did not reach the requirements of the top markbands for this question. Again, for a question requiring candidates to describe a study, there was a high percentage of imbalanced responses consisting of redundant detail describing Berry's (1974) acculturation strategies followed by an underdeveloped study description and superficial evidence of how the findings demonstrated acculturation.
\nIn many cases it was evident that candidates were unable to show accurate understanding of the concept of acculturation. There were many examples of responses simply addressing aspects of culture (e.g. cultural dimensions) accompanied by inappropriate examples of research or confusing acculturation and enculturation. A significant proportion of responses were awarded no marks however as they simply addressed irrelevant social psychology studies such as Asch's conformity experiment, Bandura's social cognitive experiment or Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment.
\nSL:
\nThis question also asked candidates to describe a study and it was clear that many candidates struggled with the concept of acculturation. A large percentage of candidates offered studies of enculturation or cultural differences instead and therefore failed to attract marks. There were a significant proportion who described Asch, Tajfel, Bandura and Zimbardo which were not creditworthy. Several candidates spent time describing Berry's (1974) four different acculturation strategies: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization, but the question was asking them to describe a study.
\nCandidates who scored well tended to choose Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study of variables that predict acculturative stress in Asian Americans, Wang et al.'s (2010) survey of Cuban American university candidates or Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study of Latino cultures and protective factors against acculturative stress. The best answers were able to give detailed accounts of the aim, sample, research method, controls, materials and a conclusion that was explicitly linked to the question.
\nDiscuss how one or more hormones affect human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how one or more hormones affect human behaviour.
\nResponses should make a clear link between the function of the hormone(s) and human behaviour.
\nRelevant hormones may include, but are not limited to: adrenaline, cortisol, melatonin, testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin.
\nAny aspect of human behaviour (e.g. aggression, depression, stress, attachment) is acceptable as long as the response focuses on how the hormone influences the particular behaviour.
\nExamples of how hormones influence human behaviour could include, but are not limited to the influence of:
\nIf a candidate addresses the effects of a neurotransmitter on behaviour, credit should only be awarded where a neurotransmitter is accurately described as acting as a hormone, for example in an explanation of how noradrenaline acts as a hormone in the stress response.
\nPossible studies include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses referring to research conducted on animals are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour.
\nHL:
\nOverall, candidates showed competent knowledge and understanding of how hormones affect human behaviour with most responses focused on the effects of oxytocin and/or cortisol. Well-written responses explained the effect of the hormone in detail and linked it specifically to human behaviours such as social bonding, empathy or memory formation. The higher scoring responses provided research that was clearly described and effectively used. Such responses also evaluated the studies well but also developed the critical thinking required for a top quality response by discussing applications and implications of research and acknowledging issues such as reductionism or alternative factors affecting the specific behaviour.
\nWeaker responses were those that did not address the command term so critical thinking in terms of balanced discussion was lacking. Such responses focused on methodological evaluation that was not elaborated on or justified, or focused on ethical issues which were of minimal relevance in this essay. Unfortunately, many responses were awarded very low marks as they focused on other biological factors such as neurotransmitters or neuroplasticity, not answering the question as set. A high proportion of responses made ineffective use of animal studies especially the studies of Romero et al. (2014) and Meany et al. (1988) as candidates struggled to link the findings to human behaviour. In most cases, any attempt at such a link was very superficial.
\nSL:
\nIn general candidates demonstrated a good understanding of how hormones affect human behaviour and there was quite a narrow range of studies used in response to this question. Those occurring most frequently were Newcomer et al.'s (1999) study on Cortisol, McGaugh and Cahill's (1995) study and follow up (1996) on Adrenaline and Baumgartner et al.'s (2008) study on Oxytocin. Schachter and Singer was a problematic study. It was creditworthy if a candidate used it to demonstrate the role of adrenaline in emotion, but if candidates described the study in terms of cognitive labelling, the study was not credited.
\nThe best answers were able to describe the origins of the hormone and its action within the human body and then make the link to show its influence on human behaviours such as attachment, memory and aggressive behaviour. Stronger candidates gave detailed accounts of either one hormone with two studies exemplifying different aspects of its influence on human behaviour, or, more than one hormone and accompanying studies which demonstrated the link to a behaviour. They also included detailed discussion of the implications of the findings and how they have been interpreted and applied.
\nWeaker candidates tended to focus their critical thinking solely on evaluation of studies which was quite generic and not elaborated. Unfortunately, in some responses to this question, candidates used irrelevant examples of neurotransmitters. Animal studies were rarely used. Discussion of ethics as a critical thinking point was inappropriate when evaluating research in this question as it was not directly relevant to a discussion of the effect of hormones on human behaviour.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating reconstructive memory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies investigating reconstructive memory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical evaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nHL:
\nThis question was answered relatively well and most candidates provided relevant examples of empirical studies. The strongest responses included more than one example of research so were well developed in terms of the details of the research selected and evaluation required for top band responses. The evaluation points were well justified, used terminology accurately and went beyond methodological evaluation to examine practical applications and provide examples of contradictory findings.
\nThe weaker responses to this question were those that provided examples of research relevant to schema theory or flashbulb memory but not reconstructive memory such as Bransford and Johnson (1972) or Brown and Kulik (1977) respectively. There were several examples of essays focused on biological factors influencing memory and referring to the case study of HM or the role of hormones or neurotransmitters in memory formation and as such failed to attract any marks. Evaluation of research in the lower scoring responses was often generic, repetitive and lacked explanation.
\nSL:
\nThis was the most popular question in section B and in general, candidates answered this well, albeit a little formulaically. There was a good variety of research used with most candidates presenting Loftus and Palmer (1974) study on the reliability of eye witness testimony or Bartlett's (1932) 'War of the Ghosts' study although these were not always described in-depth or accurately. In particular, candidates often failed to link Loftus to reconstructive memory effectively, not mentioning the follow-up study with the broken glass. Candidates also used Brewer and Treyen's (1981) office schema and Loftus and Pickrell's (1995) 'Lost in a mall study' effectively.
\nGeneric, repetitive critical thinking was once again evident; many responses merely provided some simple evaluation statements of the research studies including ethics. The best candidates however, were able to evaluate the studies by looking at issues of validity and reliability, present contradictory or real life findings through work such as Yuille and Cutshall (1986), and look at the application of the research findings
\nSome candidates offered studies on flashbulb memory, which unfortunately were often unable to attract credit as they were not focused on reconstructive memory.
\nDiscuss one or more research methods used to investigate cultural origins of behaviour and/or cultural origins of cognition.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more research methods used to investigate the cultural origins of behaviour and/or cognition.
\nCandidates may discuss research methods investigating specific aspects of human behaviour and/or cognition or discuss research methods investigating behaviour and/or cognition in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nRelevant research methods may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThere were very limited responses to this question. Unfortunately, the majority of candidates struggled with this essay. The focus of the essay needed to be on the use of one or more research methods and this should be linked to cultural origins.
\nThe best candidates provided knowledge relevant to this question about the nature of research methods. For example, if writing about experiments, they wrote about hypothesis testing, manipulation of the IV, measurement of the DV, control variables, statistical analysis of quantitative data, and random allocation to conditions. They gave an explicit link back to the question of the role of the research method in understanding origins of culture. Unfortunately, this was seldom seen.
\nThe most popular studies were studies in either cultural origins of conformity (Berry, 1967) or the cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism (Hofstede) or Kulkofsky et al. (2011) study on the role of culture on flashbulb memory.
\nCandidates could use research on acculturation/enculturation, but this had to be explicitly linked to cultural origins of behaviour/cognition.
\nEvaluation of the research needed to focus on the research method and not on other aspects of the study. For example, ethical considerations are not relevant unless there is a clear link to the use of the research method; the difficulty of carrying out experimental research on human participants because of ethical limitations or the need to deceive individuals in order to control for demand characteristics. Many candidates were unable to maintain this focus.
\nDiscuss one or more effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour.
\nBehaviour in this instance may include attitudes, identities or any other accepted behaviour. Candidates may discuss the effect of the interaction of local and global influences on specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nRelevant studies on the effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include but is not limited to:
\nThis was the essay that candidates struggled the most with and it was clear that most who attempted it were ill-prepared. Stronger responses to this question were in the minority but were able to explicitly address the key focus of the question, which was the effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour. Such responses made reference to appropriate studies investigating the required interaction and went on to provide a well-developed and balanced discussion on how this interaction influences behaviour. Weaker responses were unable to show a clear understanding of the interaction aspect and focused on research that investigated only globalization, acculturation or enculturation. Many candidates gave studies about 'learning local culture' through the process of social learning and/or studies referring to 'global culture' or acculturation. Therefore, the interaction aspect of the question was completely ignored.
\nWith reference to one study, outline the effect of one agonist or one antagonist on human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of the effect of one agonist or one antagonist on human behaviour.
\nAn agonist is a molecule that can bind and activate a receptor to induce a biological reaction. Candidates may either use an example of an endogenous agonist, such as a neurotransmitter, or an exogenous agonist, such as a drug. Antagonists inhibit the activation of receptor sites.
\nRelevant studies should demonstrate the effect of the chosen agonist or antagonist. Relevant research includes, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate outlines the effect of one agonist or antagonist without reference to a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [5].
\nIf a candidate addresses a relevant study but does not outline the effect of one agonist or antagonist, award up to a maximum of [4].
\nAnimal research may be used to describe an effect of an agonist or antagonist, but the response must then be linked to human behaviour. If there is no explicit link to human behaviour, a maximum of [6] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate outlines the effect of more than one agonist or antagonist, credit should be given only to the first agonist or antagonist.
\nHL:
\nThere were many strong responses that focused on the role of agonists or antagonists on behaviour. However, many candidates struggled to apply terminology correctly, using terms like \"excitatory\" and \"inhibitory\" neurotransmitters as synonyms for agonists and antagonists.
\nCandidates often did not understand why SSRIs are considered indirect agonists and so were not able to clearly outline the effect of the drug. Some candidates also incorrectly identified tryptophan as an agonist for serotonin when describing Passamonti et al. (2012)
\nAlthough animal research was acceptable, it needed to be linked to human behaviour. Often, candidates did not make this link effectively.
\nSL:
\nThe majority of responses were able to clearly outline the role, function and effects of agonists and/or antagonists on human behaviour. Top band responses also provided a detailed description of neurotransmission and the role of neurotransmitters with regards to human behaviour, as well as giving an appropriate example. The majority of responses used Antonova et al. (2011), Crockett et al. (2010) and Martinez & Kesner (1991). Weaker responses did not explicitly link the use of animal studies to human behaviour, or provided a generic statement concerning the link.
\nThere were many candidates who described hormones instead of neurotransmitters, who confused agonists with antagonists or who described irrelevant research from other approaches, many responses provided unnecessary descriptions and evaluations of concepts and research.
\nDescribe one study investigating how one bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.
\nCandidate 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:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description.
\nHL:
\nAlthough many candidates demonstrated good knowledge of the Dual Process Model and the nature of cognitive biases in thinking and decision-making, a significant number of candidates did not focus their response on the description of a study. Strong responses had a clearly stated aim, good detail about the procedure, and a conceptual understanding of the findings. In addition, they were able to make the link to the identified cognitive bias.
\nSome responses were not focused on thinking and decision-making, but instead described schema theory and memory distortion.
\nTwo studies proved problematic for candidates — Wason (1968) and Stroop (1935). In both cases, the test was described, but not the actual experiment. In addition, candidates struggled to link them to a relevant cognitive bias.
\nSL:
\nA large proportion of candidates scoring in the top-mark band discussed the role of Dual Process Theory and/or heuristics and gave a description of Kahneman's research into the two systems of thinking. A significant proportion of responses attempted to descritask studies with limited degrees of success. Candidates who used confirmation bias and gave Wason's selection task as a research study did not score highly due to the fact that Wason did not give a name to the bias that resulted in his findings. Lots of responses described schema theory as a cognitive bias.
\nSome candidates confused their biases, explaining another in its place. Common examples included framing effect, anchoring bias, illusory correlation, confirmation bias, and the peak-end rule. There was some confusion with regards to stereotypes, cultural and gender biases as an example of cognitive biases.
\nDescribe one study investigating enculturation.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating enculturation.
\nCandidate 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:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses enculturation but does not describe a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nHL:
\nAlthough the focus of this question was on the description of a study, candidates often included a detailed explanation of the process of enculturation that was not a requirement for this question.
\nDescriptions of research often lacked detail about the procedure. Stronger responses demonstrated a good understanding of the methodology used and strategies employed by the researchers to increase the validity of the research.
\nSome candidates described research on cultural dimensions but failed to make any clear link to the question of enculturation.
\nSL:
\nThe question was generally answered well, with an impressive variety of relevant studies. Many candidates used Fagot et al.'s (1974) research into gender roles or Odden and Rochat's (2004) study into hierarchal systems in Samoa.
\nHowever, a large proportion of responses confused the concept of acculturation with enculturation, most then went on to describe an irrelevant study into acculturation, these responses scored zero marks.
\nEvaluate one or more research methods used when investigating the relationship between the brain and behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more research methods used when investigating the relationship between the brain and behaviour. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nBehaviour may include cognitive processes.
\nResearch methods used when investigating the brain and behaviour include, but are not limited to:
\nAs part of their response, candidates may address results of studies that use technologies (e.g. MRI, fMRI, PET); however, the focus of the evaluation must be on the chosen research method(s).
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking.
\nHL:
\nThere were several strong responses to this question – primarily focused on the use of experiments and/or case studies in the study of the brain and behaviour. Weaker responses were not focused on a research method, but instead discussed the use of twin studies, animal research, or brain imaging technology.
\nSome candidates struggled with the command term and did not address any of the strengths of the research methods, focusing solely on limitations. Weaker candidates evaluated the research with limited evaluation of the actual research method.
\nMany candidates struggled with the use of appropriate terminology. Many used the terms “lab experiment” and “true experiment” interchangeably. This resulted in many making the false claim that all lab experiments establish a cause-and-effect relationship, although many quasi-experiments – including Maguire’s (2000) taxi study – clearly do not.
\nIn addition, there was often an oversimplified understanding of validity and reliability. Some candidates assumed that all studies done in a lab have high internal validity and low ecological validity. There was limited understanding of the complexity of these two concepts. Terms such as “control,” “accuracy,” and “generalizability” were often misapplied.
\nSL:
\nThere were many strong responses to this question and candidates demonstrated an impressive breadth and depth of learning. Relevant psychological research methods were described in detail and once again there was an impressive variety of empirical evidence demonstrated. Many responses used psychological experiments by Crockett et al., Draganski et al., Antonova et al., as well as more familiar research such as Maguire's quasi-experiment and Milner's Case Study of HM.
\nA considerable number of candidates used brain imaging techniques as a stand-alone research method and these responses did not score highly due to the fact that these do not qualify as a separate research method.
\nFamiliar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.
\nDiscuss schema theory in relation to cognitive processing.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” asks candidates to offer a considered review of how schema theory contributes to an understanding of cognitive processing.
\nPsychological studies investigating schema theory include but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nHL:
\nThere were several strong responses to this question, demonstrating a good understanding of research into schema theory and its role in explaining memory or thinking and decision-making. However, many candidates struggled to explain the theory in any detail with regard to its role in cognition.
\nWeaker responses only evaluated research with little consideration of the theory itself. These responses also tended to have superficial critical thinking focused on ethical considerations or unsupported claims about the inability to generalize the findings.
\nSL:
\nResponses in this question were often formulaic and usually began with a simplistic explanation of schema theory or a basic description of related concepts. Many candidates spent unnecessary time discussing memory processes and unrelated models and/or research such as Atkinson and Shiffrin's multi-store model of memory and/or Yuille and Cutshall's research into the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
\nThere was a good variety of research used in this response. Most candidates gave either Bartlett's 'War of the Ghosts' study or Piaget's research into schema theory as historical context, although these were not always described in-depth or accurately. Candidates then introduced one or more relevant studies: Loftus and Palmer, Brewer and Treyens, Anderson and Pichert, and Bransford and Johnson proved most popular.
\nThe lack of well-described critical thinking was once again evident; many responses merely provided some simple evaluation statements of the research studies and ignored what schema theory tells us about cognitive processing.
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations related to research studies investigating cultural origins of behaviour and/or cultural origins of cognition.
\n\n
Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of ethical considerations related to research studies investigating the cultural origins of behaviour and/or cognition. The focus of the response should be on the ethical considerations related to relevant research into cultural origins of behaviour and/or cognition.
\nEthical considerations may be positive (which guidelines were followed) or negative (which guidelines were not followed). There are a number of ethical considerations which may be discussed. These include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThere were very limited responses to this question with many candidates choosing to answer others. The majority of responses were poorly done and scored in the low markbands; this was due to a number of reasons. Many candidates were clearly confused and demonstrated little understanding of ethical considerations related specifically to \"cultural origins of behaviour and/or cultural origins of cognition\". A large proportion of responses used generic ethical considerations of studies such as Bandura's Bobo Doll study, Tajfel's minimal group paradigm studies or Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment, which were not relevant.
\nOf those that did describe ethical considerations into relevant research, the vast majority of candidates described studies in either cultural origins of conformity or the cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism; examples included Hofstede, Barry, Berry and Katz, Kulkofsky.
\nTo what extent does globalization influence behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"to what extent\" requires candidates to consider the influence of globalization on human behaviour.
\nBehaviour in this instance may include attitudes, identities or any other accepted behaviour.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss acculturation to the global culture or the role of contact with other cultures as a means of changing local culture; however, it is not relevant to discuss acculturation research based on immigrants moving to a new culture and the level to which one assimilates to the culture of a new country.
\nTo address the “to what extent” command term, appropriate strategies may include, but are not limited to:
\nThere were some impressive responses to this question and the command term \"to what extent.\" Strong responses not only included relevant research, but also discussed the inherent difficulties of studying the effect of globalization on behaviour.
\nSome candidates confused globalization and acculturation. All globalization research is relevant in terms of one's acculturation to the global culture; however, not all acculturation is about globalization. Several candidates discussed research on acculturative stress in immigrants moving to a new country; this was not relevant to the question.
\nOutline neural pruning with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of neural pruning with reference to one relevant study.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nAn outline of the concept of neural pruning may include:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.
\nIf a candidate outlines neural pruning without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without outlining neural pruning, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nThe response must make a link between neural pruning and the chosen study; however, a link between the study and human behaviour is not required.
\nCandidates showed appropriate knowledge and understanding of neural pruning and its relation to neuroplasticity. Draganski et al. and Maguire et al. were the two most cited studies.
\nTop band responses gave a detailed account of the process of neural pruning and its role in neuroplasticity, with explicit mention of the cerebral area involved in the chosen study.
\nLow band responses outlined only neuroplasticity or described neurotransmission without mentioning neural pruning.
\nDescribe schema theory, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of schema theory, with reference to one relevant study.
\nCandidates may refer to relevant aspects of schema theory such as, but not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes schema theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing schema theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nCandidates performed inconsistently on this question. There seemed to be a general understanding of schema, but its relevance in the cognitive process wasn't grasped.
\nThere were often some inaccurate claims of the role of schema in cognitive processes such as thinking and decision-making.
Relevant studies such as Bransford and Johnson, Brewer and Treyens, Cohen et al. were described.
Although the studies were relevant to the question, some candidates failed to link the study with the theory outlined in the introduction. Instead, top responses made the explicit link, for example, Cohen's study was linked to stereotypes as a type of social schema.
\nOutline the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition with reference to one relevant study.
\nAppropriate topics may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate outlines the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without outlining the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\n\n
Candidates used relevant studies to illustrate the role of culture in cognition/ behaviour. Berry et al. was, by far, the most used study in responses to this question.
\nHowever, many candidates failed to link culture with a specific cognition/behaviour, providing long and often irrelevant cultural definitions. These responses obtained mid-band marks since an understanding of the role of culture in behaviour/cognition was relevant but limited.
\nDiscuss how one or more hormones and/or one or more pheromones affect human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how one or more hormones and/or one or more pheromones affect behaviour.
\nThe effect of hormones/pheromones may be discussed in relation to any type of behaviour such as, but not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nAnimal research may be used to describe the effect of pheromones and hormones, but the response must then be linked to human behaviour. If there is no explicit link to human behaviour the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D.
\nThere were robust responses to this question. Candidates seemed well prepared, showing knowledge and understanding of pheromones and hormones using relevant research linked to both messengers. There was a broad combination of responses discussing only pheromones, only hormones or a combination of both. Responses using pheromones and hormones allowed candidates to show relevant knowledge and understanding, obtaining higher marks in criteria B and C.
\nPheromones seem to be a preferred topic, and most candidates impressively discussed them, grasping areas of uncertainty and methodological issues of the role of pheromones in mating or attachment and detailed descriptions of relevant studies.
\nVery few responses used neurotransmitters instead of hormones, obtaining lower marks as a result.
\nDiscuss one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of one cognitive process.
\nCognitive processes may include:
\nDiscussion of a cognitive process may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process discussed.
\nAn impressive range of knowledge about cognitive processes was displayed in this question.
\nStrong responses centred on the discussion of models of memory, reconstructive memory, and thinking and decision-making. Throughout the essay, these responses remained focused regarding the chosen areas to discuss.
\nOn several occasions, candidates were unfocused about the discussion, for example some started explaining memory models and ended up concluding about the role of schemas in cognition.
\nLow band responses were primarily descriptive and didn't address any discussion points.
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations related to research studies investigating individuals and groups.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more ethical considerations related to research studies investigating individuals and groups.
\nEthical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies investigating individuals and groups may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nVery few candidates chose to answer this question. Top responses showed knowledge and understanding centering on one or two ethical considerations and used relevant research linked to the question. However, the discussion was often formulaic, jumping to conclusions about unmet ethical standards.
\nLow band responses seemed unfocused, providing a long list of ethical considerations, mentioning the importance of following ethical standards on research and describing studies without a link to ethical considerations. In other cases, candidates only provided extensive methodological descriptions of sociocultural research without addressing ethical issues, scoring zero in knowledge and understanding.
\nEvaluate one or more studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics and behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics and behaviour.
\nAlthough a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations of the study or studies, 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.
\nThere were many very impressive responses to this question. Candidates showed excellent knowledge of the role of animal models in genetic research and had a very good understanding of the limitations of both the research and the use of the models.
\nThere were, however, several common errors in the approach to the response. Several candidates focused on ethical considerations in animal research, rather than on the demands of the question. There were also some responses that used research, such as Meaney (1988), but failed to link the study to genetics. There were also several responses that used an animal study for one behaviour, but then a human study for another behaviour — for example, Meaney's study of the GR gene for stress regulation and Caspi's study on the 5-HTT gene and depression.
\nSome candidates argued that we cannot learn anything from animal models. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of their potential value in understanding behaviour.
\nDiscuss validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that addresses various aspects of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
\nRelevant classification systems in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was a rather popular choice and was addressed with a wide range of different responses. Some responses provided some knowledge but limited understanding of validity and/or reliability. On the other hand, high quality responses provided a focused appraisal of biases related to diagnosis. Unfortunately, some candidates failed to address the question set and decided to discuss the issue of normality versus abnormality in a general manner. Critical thinking was also a bit uneven, with some candidates using theory or studies to foster a logical argument, while others seemed to focus on heavy criticism of diagnosis and psychiatry in general but failed to support their arguments with relevant knowledge.
\nEvaluate one or more explanations for one psychological disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more explanations for one psychological disorder. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThe disorder chosen is likely to come from the list in the guide:
\nExplanations for psychological disorders may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nThis was one of the most popular questions on the exam, and was, for the most part, answered well. Most candidates seemed to be well prepared for this question and had clear knowledge of one or more explanations for one psychological disorder. Responses focusing on one or two explanations tended to be focused and well written, providing a good balance between knowledge and evidence of critical thinking. Popular examples of psychological disorders were major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Popular explanations were biological explanations (role of genes or role of neurotransmitters) and cognitive explanations. Unfortunately, some candidates failed to address the question fully since they attempted to focus on describing and evaluating research studies of one or more explanations for one psychological disorder.
\nEvaluate one or more studies related to the treatment of one or more psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies related to the treatment of one or more psychological disorders. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not the treatment of psychological disorders. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThe disorder chosen is likely to come from the list in the guide:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf the candidate provides studies on causes of disorder (rather than treatment of disorder) the response needs to make a clear link between the underlying cause and how it can be approached in treatment for the responses to gain credit.
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, 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.
\nMarks 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 does not need 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was also popular for candidates. Unfortunately, some candidates ignored the \"one or more studies\" part of the question and wrote thorough responses on treatments of psychological disorders this approach had quite an adverse effect on their overall marks. Popular choices included studies which compared two types of treatments in a controlled trial.
\nTo what extent do sociocultural factors influence the development of identity?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"to what extent\" requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors in the development of identity. It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address the influence of biological and cognitive factors in the development of identity in order to respond to the command term \"to what extent\".
\nSociocultural factors influencing identity development may include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may address a small number of sociocultural factors influencing identity development in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of sociocultural factors influencing identity development in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThis was not extremely popular with candidates, but some did a nice job of responding to the question. Candidates addressing this question focused on the role of culture or gender in the development of identity. Although responses reflected good knowledge of theories and research, critical thinking seemed to be a bit weak for this response.
\nEvaluate one or more theories of cognitive development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more theories of cognitive development. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nTheories may include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nWas the most popular question within this option. Candidates frequently chose to evaluate Piaget's and Vygotsky's theory of development. They were aware of relevant research and generally addressed both strengths and limitations within theory and research. Unfortunately, some candidates ignored the command term \"evaluate\" and instead chose to \"contrast\" these two theories.
\nDiscuss the role of peers and/or play in cognitive development and/or social development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development.
\nRelevant topics may include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one aspect of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of aspects of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThis question was popular, but not always answered well. Some candidates used general knowledge to discuss the benefits of peers and play on children's overall development. High quality responses tended to focus on different types of play and their impact on cognitive or social development or chose Piaget's and Vygotsky's theory and research on the impact of play on cognitive development.
\nEvaluate one or more studies related to health promotion.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies related to health promotion by weighing up strengths and limitations of the studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies and not on health promotion in general. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, the discussion does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant studies related to health promotion may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, 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.
\nMarks 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 does not need 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nFew candidates attempted to answer this question. Those who chose it responded well by choosing one or two health promotion strategies and describing and evaluating studies assessing the effectiveness of these. A few candidates attempted to focus on evaluating health promotion not the studies.
\nDiscuss how risk and/or protective factors affect health.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how risk and/or protective factors affect health. Candidates may choose to discuss health in general or might refer to a specific health problem. Either approach is acceptable.
\nAspects of health likely to be addressed are:
\nRisk/protective factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of risk/protective factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of risk/protective factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates addressing this question chose to focus on stress, addiction or obesity. Most candidates managed to provide evidence of knowledge but a few candidates chose to write general responses by discussing stress or obesity but not risk and/or protective factors related to them. Critical thinking here was fairly limited as it clearly did not fit the question.
\nEvaluate one or more explanations of health problems.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths and limitations of one or more explanations of health problems. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, the discussion does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nCandidates may evaluate one or more explanations of specific health problems (for example, stress, addiction, obesity, chronic pain, sexual health), or evaluate one or more explanations of health problems in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExplanations of health problems may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] marks for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nThis was a rather popular question within the option. Most candidates evaluated the biomedical model or theory of planned behaviour of a specific health problem (most popular were stress and addiction). In the majority of cases candidates did a good job evaluating the explanation by providing supporting or contradictory empirical evidence.
\nDiscuss the formation of personal relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the formation of personal relationships.
\nCandidates may refer to issues including, but not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was a popular choice. Candidates generally did a good job addressing this question and in the majority of cases managed to provide one or more explanations of the formation of personal relationships. Evidence of critical thinking was offered by either addressing cultural or gender considerations or by suggesting alternative explanations. Some candidates wrongly chose to write about how relationships change or end with long descriptions of the four horsemen of the apocalypse — this approach failed to gain many marks.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution by weighing up the strengths and limitations. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies and not on the origin of conflict and/or conflict resolution. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nTopics investigating origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, 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.
\nMarks 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 does not need 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was the least popular question within the option but was usually well addressed. Candidates usually chose to discuss realistic group conflict theory and/or social identity theory as appropriate explanations. In the majority of cases candidates focused on one or two studies investigating origins of conflict — a very popular choice was Sherif et al.'s (1961) field experiment. In some cases, candidates went into long and overly detailed descriptions of this study and consequently ran out of time therefore providing only an outline of the evaluation.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating social responsibility.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies investigating social responsibility. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies and not on social responsibility. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThe topic of social responsibility may include, but is not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, 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.
\nMarks 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 does not need 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was also very popular, but not evenly addressed. As with question 11, some candidates did a very good job of identifying and describing classic studies and included evaluation by focusing on methodological or cultural considerations. However, some candidates wrongly chose to evaluate different explanations of social responsibility and the response did not have a focus on research studies — this approach failed to earn high marks.
\nDescribe one effect of one hormone on behaviour, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one effect of one hormone on behaviour, with reference to one relevant study.
\nAny aspect of human behaviour (e.g., aggression, attachment, sexual behaviour) is acceptable as long as the response focuses on how one hormone affects a particular behaviour.
\nAlthough 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. Responses that address the effect of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, GABA and acetylcholine on behaviour should not be awarded marks.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one effect on more than one hormone, credit should be given only to the first effect or the first hormone described.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes the effect of one hormone without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing the effect of the hormone, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nMost candidates were able to identify a relevant hormone and a relevant research study but many found it a challenge to describe the effect of the hormone on human behaviour and to use the selected study effectively in light of the question.
\nThe most common studies selected were descriptions of Newcomer et al.'s (1999) study on cortisol and verbal declarative memory, Baumgartner et al.'s (2008) study on the effect of oxytocin on trust in economic behaviour and McGaugh and Cahill's (1995) study on the effect of adrenaline in memories linked to emotional arousal.
\nThe best responses tended to demonstrate accurate knowledge of the function and role of hormones generally as well as accurate and detailed knowledge and understanding of the effect of one specific hormone on a behaviour. The study findings were linked explicitly to the effect of the hormone, with a directional focus; showing how the hormone increases or decreases the specific behaviour.
\nWeaker answers merely made a statement on the function of the hormone and focused on describing a relevant study. Some candidates referred to an appropriate hormone and identified a relevant effect on a behaviour but used animal studies, most notably Romero et al. (2014) or Meany et al. (1988) to ineffectively support their response to this question. However, in such cases there was inevitably no more than a passing reference to how the findings could be related to human behaviour. Some students included evaluation of the studies they used which reduced their focus on the command term. Unfortunately some students selected a neurotransmitter rather than a hormone (serotonin, dopamine or acetylcholine).
\nOverall the quality of responses was not high, as many students did not demonstrate a good depth of understanding of the effect of hormones on behaviour.
\nHL:
\nCandidates who performed well in this question were able to clearly identify a hormone and describe its effect on a specific behaviour through the use of a relevant study which was usually quite well described. However, the majority of responses were not able to address the command term well and simply gave a very brief account of how a hormone affected a behaviour so that the response was not well focused on the demands of the question.
\nThe most common studies chosen were descriptions of Newcomer et al.'s (1999) study on cortisol and verbal declarative memory, Baumgartner et al.'s (2008) study on the effect of oxytocin on trust in economic behaviour and McGaugh and Cahill's (1995) study on the effect of adrenaline in memories linked to emotional arousal.
\nThe strongest responses tended to demonstrate accurate knowledge of the function and role of hormones generally as well as accurate and detailed knowledge and understanding of the effect of one specific hormone on a behaviour. The study findings were linked explicitly to the effect of the hormone, with a directional focus and showing how the hormone increases or decreases the specific behaviour selected.
\nUnfortunately there was a surprisingly high number of responses that provided completely irrelevant studies from the biological approach (for example, studies of pheromones or neurotransmitters). Several candidates were able to identify and somewhat describe the effect of a hormone on behaviour eg the effect of testosterone on aggression, but then provided a study that was not of direct relevance, such as that of Bandura.
\nSome candidates referred to an appropriate hormone and identified a relevant effect on a behaviour but used animal studies, most notably Romero et al. (2014) or Meany et al. (1988) to ineffectively support their response to this question. In such cases there was inevitably no more than a passing reference to how the findings could be related to human behaviour.
\nDescribe one ethical consideration related to one relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour.
\nThe ethical consideration described can be one that was adhered to in the study (what guidelines were or could be followed) or one that was breached (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies related to the cognitive approach may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration credit should be given only to the first description.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes one ethical consideration without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing one ethical consideration, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nThis question asked for a description of an ethical consideration. Most candidates were able to identify one consideration, with protection from harm, informed consent and deception being the most commonly selected. The studies most commonly selected were Brewer and Treyens' (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on memory, Corkin et al. (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM's brain lesion in relation to memory, and Loftus and Palmer's (1974) use of deception in the study of reconstructive memory.
\nStronger answers included identifying one relevant ethical consideration, defining it, describing how and why it was addressed in research and its importance to the quality of psychological research overall including the link to other ethical considerations, for example deception and the subsequent lack of fully informed consent which necessitated thorough debriefing. High-scoring students tended to describe a relevant study from the cognitive approach and focus on the link to the ethical issue throughout the description.
\nWeaker answers merely identified the ethical consideration or may have given an overview of all ethical considerations without identifying one as the focus of the response. Several included research that was not relevant to the cognitive approach to behaviour, such as Zimbardo's prison study, Milgram's obedience study or Bandura's observational learning study which could not be credited. Likewise, a surprising number of responses addressed ethical considerations in animal research studies which resulted in low marks.
\nOverall the majority of answers fell in the midband — candidates seemed to understand ethical considerations in general and in most cases could select a relevant study, even if the description and link to the ethical consideration lacked depth.
\nHL:
\nA range of ethical considerations were addressed for this question. The most commonly encountered were informed consent, deception and prevention of undue stress or harm. The studies most commonly selected were Brewer and Treyens' (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on recall, Corkin et al. (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM's brain lesion in relation to memory, .
\nStronger responses to this question were those that correctly identified and described an ethical consideration in some detail and then linked it explicitly to a relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour. Such responses were fully focused on the demands of the question and could show explicitly and in good detail how the study illustrated the ethical consideration.
\nMost responses to this question fell into the mid-band range of marks as candidates had unfocused responses with a good deal of unnecessary information referring to several ethical considerations at the outset of the answer. Therefore, this meant that much of the response was redundant and the ensuing description of the targeted ethical consideration was underdeveloped. Not all studies were relevant to the cognitive approach and several candidates included a classic, ethically controversial piece of research such as Zimbardo's prison study, Milgram's obedience study or Bandura's observational learning study which could not be credited. Likewise, a surprising number of responses addressed ethical considerations in animal research studies which resulted in low marks.
\nDescribe social cognitive theory, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social cognitive theory in relation to one relevant study.
\nThe main concepts of social cognitive theory may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes social cognitive theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing social cognitive theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nMost candidates were able to demonstrate some understanding of social cognitive theory and include a relevant study as support. The stronger candidates were successful in providing a detailed description of all aspects of social cognitive theory that included observational learning, the role of attention, retention, reproduction and motivation, and a few went into greater depth describing self-efficacy, vicarious reinforcement and reciprocal determinism. Most responses applied Bandura and Ross Bobo doll study to this question, with only a minority of learners offering alternatives such as Odden and Rochat (2004) and Fagot (1978) effectively. The most effective answers gave explicit and developed links from the study to the theory.
\nSeveral candidates confused social cognitive theory with social identity theory so gained limited marks as they chose irrelevant studies such as Tajfel to support their response. Many responses also focused incorrectly on stereotypes.
\nOverall the quality of responses was good, most scoring in the upper midband — many responses included a basic overview of social cognitive theory with well described relevant research but lacked well developed links from the findings to the key components of the theory in order to access the top mark band.
\nHL:
\nThe stronger responses provided a clear, accurate and detailed description of the key features of social cognitive theory and explicitly showed how the findings of the selected piece of research were linked to the theory. The vast majority of responses included Bandura et al.'s (1961) study on observational learning of aggression.
\nThe majority of responses did not reach the requirements of the top mark bands for this question. Several responses included a basic overview of social cognitive theory with well described relevant research but lacked clearly-developed links from the findings to the key components of the theory in order to access the top mark band. The weakest responses to this question were those that confused social cognitive theory with social identity theory and focused on inappropriate studies such as Tajfel's in support of the question.
\nDiscuss the relationship between genetics and behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the relationship between genetics and behaviour.
\nCandidates may address one behaviour to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address more than one behaviour to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nRelevant areas of the relationship between genetics and behaviour may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nSL:
\nIn general, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the relationship between genetics and behaviour and there were a wide range of studies used in response to this question. Those occurring most frequently were Bouchard et al.'s (1990) reports on the \"Minnesota Twin Studies\", Kendler et al.'s (2006) twin study on genetics and depression, and Caspi et al.'s (2003)study on genes and depression.
\nThe best answers tended to focus on the effect of genes on one behaviour (for example, intelligence, depression) which allowed them to explore in depth the issue of nature versus nurture and the limitations of genetic research. Strong answers demonstrated accurate and detailed knowledge and understanding of how behaviours can be genetically determined as well as understanding the research methods involved such as twin and kinship studies. The best candidates also demonstrated an understanding of the nature versus nurture debate and were able to explore the opposing environmental factors and explore interactionist approaches such as diathesis stress.
\nSome high-quality answers included reference to DNA and how it is passed down from one generation to the next, reference to the Falconer model and reference and explanation of genetic predisposition/vulnerability and epigenetics. However Wedekind (1995) was also often used inappropriately without linking to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene.
\nWeaker answers made reference to evolutionary studies not well linked to genetics (Fessler, Curtis, Ekman) or a lack of a clear presentation of relevant research with a link to genetics. Candidates made generic evaluative points relating to the methodology of studies presented rather than critically discussing the issue of the influence of genes on behaviour which limited their critical thinking marks.
\nHL:
\nThis was the most popular choice of essay question. On the whole, candidates showed competent knowledge and understanding of the relationship between genetics and behaviour. Well-written responses provided detailed explanation of the conceptual context underlying the relationship between genetics and behaviour with the majority of responses focusing on depression or aggression. The higher scoring responses provided research that was clearly described and effectively used. Such responses also evaluated the studies well but also developed the critical thinking required for a top-quality response by discussing applications and implications of research and acknowledging discussion points such as reductionism versus interactionism, diathesis-stress, etc.
\nWeaker responses were those that did not address the command term so critical thinking in terms of balanced discussion of the relationship between genetics and behaviour was lacking. These responses showed very limited use of relevant terminology. Such responses focused on methodological evaluation that was not elaborated on or justified or just focused on ethical issues of the research which were of minimal relevance in this essay. Unfortunately, many responses were awarded very low marks as they focused on other biological factors such as evolution so that studies selected were not well-linked to genetics such as Fessler (2006) or Curtis (2004). Furthermore, Wedekind (1995) was also often used inappropriately without explicitly linking to the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene.
\nDiscuss one cultural dimension of human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one cultural dimension of human behaviour.
\nCultural dimensions may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses should present the core traits that define the chosen cultural dimension. For example, candidates may discuss that individualistic societies focus on uniqueness, achievement and freedom, whereas collectivistic societies focus on family, relationships and a common fate or heritage.
\nCandidates may address the chosen cultural dimension generally, for example, that it is the effect of a culture on the beliefs and values of a society, or in a more detailed manner with explanations based on social mobility, agricultural versus urban, democratic principles, economic stability, etc. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first cultural dimension discussed.
\nSL:
\nClear presentation of relevant research with an effort to link the results to the characteristics of the cultural dimension was a feature of higher-scoring responses, as was a well-developed and relevant evaluation of the research presented with a holistic discussion of the value of using dimensions to understand behaviour and an acknowledgment of the variation of behaviour within the dimension. The best answers described two or more studies in detail — Berry and Katz (1967) and Kulkofsky et al. (2011) proved very popular and strong responses clearly linked them to individualism/collectivism.
\nWeaker answers described all the cultural dimensions before developing one specific dimension. Some students also did not know the difference between a few of the dimensions and used studies incorrectly; using enculturation, acculturation or globalization research. These studies were not credited unless there was a very clear focus on a specific cultural dimension and specific behaviour(s).
\nThe weakest responses were often entirely anecdotal, with no reference to psychological terminology or studies.
\nOverall the quality of responses was surprisingly poor to average with many responses using irrelevant research, research that was not well developed or relevant research but not explicitly linking the results to the characteristics of the dimension.
\nHL:
\nStronger responses to this question were definitely in the minority but were able to explicitly address the key focus of the question which was a discussion of one cultural dimension of human behaviour. Such responses provided a detailed and accurate explanation of a relevant dimension, in most cases, individualism/collectivism. These stronger responses included relevant studies that were well described and explicitly linked to the specific dimension. This was accompanied by a well-developed and balanced discussion centred around how valuable the dimension was in furthering understanding of human behaviour. The strongest answers also described two or more studies in detail: Berry and Katz,1967 and Kulkofsky et al., 2011 proved very popular and these responses clearly linked them to individualism/collectivism.
\nWeaker responses rarely showed detailed knowledge of the chosen dimension but were characterized by limited theoretical understanding and limited explanation of the key features of the dimension. Although the majority of candidates could describe relevant studies, these were not always used effectively to link to the dimension. Providing a focused and well-developed discussion was a challenge for many candidates and critical thinking was often superficial and focused on evaluation of methodological issues in the studies. Some candidates also applied studies incorrectly; using enculturation, acculturation or globalization research. These studies were not credited unless there was a very clear focus on a specific cultural dimension and specific behaviour(s).
\nEvaluate one method used to study the interaction between technology and cognitive processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one method used to study the interaction between technology and cognitive processes.
\nAlthough the discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant methods may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the method may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than one method, credit should be given only to the first evaluation. However, candidates may address other methods and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate the one main method addressed in the response.
\nIf 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.
\nThis was the essay that candidates struggled the most with and it was clear that most who attempted it were ill-prepared. Stronger responses clearly described and explained in detail the key features of one research method used to study the interaction between technology and cognitive processes. Most of these candidates selected the experimental method and provided relevant studies that effectively demonstrated the use of the method. Such responses also addressed the strengths and limitations of the method itself so that the essay was clearly focused on the demands of the question as set and did not just provide a perfunctory evaluation of the supporting studies.
\nA number of candidates showed a complete misunderstanding of the demands of the question and it was clear that either they had not understood that this question was from the higher level extension or were totally unprepared. Several candidates focused on the use of brain scanning technology such as MRI instead of the required research method so that the response was completely off topic. In addition, these responses included research studies that were of no direct relevance to the question or the cognitive approach such as Maguire (2000) and Draganski (2004). In the weaker responses that did focus on digital technology, evaluation of the selected research method was often generic, repetitive and lacked explanation.
\nDiscuss reconstructive memory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of reconstructive memory.
\nDescription of the nature of reconstructive memory could include, but is not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was the most popular essay question and the majority of candidates were able to cite relevant research studies, the most popular of which were Loftus and Palmer's (1974) automobile study into reconstructive memory, Yuille and Cutshall's (1986) study of real life eye-witnesses, and Bartlett's (1932) war of the ghosts study.
\nThe best candidates gave a detailed explanation of reconstructive memory and referred to role of schemas in their explanation. They provided relevant and well detailed descriptions of research, often with contrasting arguments about the nature of reconstructive memory. Their discussion was well developed, going beyond generic evaluation of methodology, providing a holistic discussion of the importance of reconstructive memory, applications of the research and contradictory evidence.
\nCommon mistakes made in weaker responses included the inclusion of irrelevant research that focused only on schemas but not memory reconstruction, or the role of flashbulb memories but using studies that showed no memory reconstruction.
\nDescribe neuroplasticity, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of neuroplasticity with reference to one relevant study.
\nDescriptions of neuroplasticity may show conceptual understanding of long-term potentiation, neurogenesis and/or synaptic pruning. Responses should indicate how the neural connections in the brain change as a result of a behaviour or cognitive process. Animal research is acceptable.
\nWhen describing the study, the relevant area of the brain where neuroplasticity is observed should be identified.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes neuroplasticity related to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nAs the question is focused only on the physiological process of neuroplasticity, it is not necessary to focus on a behaviour; studies of cortical mapping are appropriate.
\nIf a candidate describes neuroplasticity without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing neuroplasticity, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nMost candidates were able to provide good descriptions of neuroplasticity and related concepts. Many candidates clearly understood the concepts of neural networks, long-term potentiation and dendritic branching. Weaker responses briefly described neuroplasticity as the brains ability to adapt or change due to environmental influences, injury or learning a new skill. Weaker responses lacked use of relevant psychological terminology.
\nThe vast majority of candidates used either Maguire or Draganski as their supporting research, however descriptions were often lacking in precision with regards to the findings and conclusions.
\nHL:
\nMany candidates wrote strong descriptions of neuroplasticity including the concepts of long-term potentiation, dendritic branching, and neural pruning. Weaker responses provided only a very basic definition referring to the brain's ability to change in response to internal and external stimuli.
\nResearch was well described but often the findings were not clearly stated or lacked precision with regard to the actual changes in the brain.
\nDescribe one model of memory, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one model of memory.
\nRelevant models of memory may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nAlthough it is acceptable for candidates to include a drawing of the model, the written description of the model is assessed on its own merits.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one model of memory or more than one study, credit should be given only to the first model of memory or study described.
\nIf a candidate describes one model of memory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing a model of memory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nThe majority of responses demonstrated a strong understanding of a variety of memory models, by far the most common being the multi-store model (MSM) and the working memory model (WMM). A wide variety of relevant research was clearly described and linked back to the appropriate model.
\nSome candidates named one memory model and then proceeded to describe another. A noticeable amount of responses confused the MSM with the WMM or used a supporting study which in fact supported the other model.
\nHL:
\nMany candidates were able to describe a model of memory in good detail and describe a relevant study. The link between the study and the model could often be better explained. Some candidates simply created a diagram of the model with no description. No marks were awarded for drawings without explanations.
\nAlthough bot schema theory and flashbulb memory theory were accepted as \"models,\" often the theory was not described in any detail. The command term describe requires that key aspects of the theory with regard to encoding and retrieval be presented.
\nDescribe social identity theory, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.
\nResponses should identify the key concepts of SIT which include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies related to social identity theory may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes social identity theory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing social identity theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nSL:
\nThere were many good responses to this question. The majority of candidates were able to provide a detailed description of social identity theory (SIT)and its component parts. There was also a wide variety of appropriate research described, with many responses focusing on Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm experiments.
\nStronger responses described the aims and procedures well, clearly linking the study back to SIT. There were a noticeable amount of candidates who mistakenly described Social Cognitive Theory, incorrectly using Bandura's Bobo Doll study as an example of research.
\nHL:
\nThere were many strong, well-detailed descriptions of social identity theory. There were also many candidates who simply listed several relevant terms without demonstrating understanding of their meaning.
\nMany candidates described Tajfel's (1970) study; however, some candidates struggled to clearly and accurately outline the procedure and findings of the study.
\nEvaluate one technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nBrain imaging techniques may include, but are not limited to: CT scans, EEG, fMRI, MRI, PET.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the evaluation of the technique used to study the brain. Although an understanding of how the technique works may be beneficial, it is not required for marks in the top band.
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than one technique, credit should be given only to the first technique evaluated.
\nIf 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.
\nSL:
\nThere were many strong responses to this question where candidates demonstrated solid understanding of a relevant brain imaging technique. The vast majority of candidates used either MRI or fMRI and were able to describe how these scans worked in an impressive level of detail.
\nStronger responses described in detail how MRI / fMRI scans use magnetic fields and radio waves to produce detailed images of the brain or how fMRI scans measure changes in blood flow. Many stronger scripts described how MRI / fMRI scans show either the structure and/or functions of the brain. Strong responses also described how the process of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is used to interpret data. Weaker responses interpreted 'technique to study the brain' as a stand-alone research method, describing the use of experiments or case studies for example.
\nThere were a number of responses that confused MRI and fMRI studies, for example, Maguire and Draganski's studies were used as supporting research when describing fMRI, this resulted in low marks.
\nFamiliar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.
\nHL:
\nThere were some strong responses to this question — primarily focused on either the use of an MRI or an fMRI. Some candidates misunderstood that although MRI and fMRI are the same machine, they are still two different techniques that are used in research. In responses with more than one technique, only the first one was assessed.
\nStrong responses demonstrated understanding of how the technology works and/or how the data is interpreted (for example, pixel counting, voxel-based morphometry (VBM)).
\nStrong critical thinking addressed concerns about researcher bias, ability to establish causality, levels of internal versus ecological validity, or the role that cost plays on sample sizes. Weaker responses tended to focus on superficial evaluation points regarding metal implants and claustrophobia which were not highly relevant to the research presented.
\nThe command term \"evaluate\" requires that both strengths and limitations be discussed. Often candidates identified the strengths as \"the research demonstrated neuroplasticity.\" Findings, in and of themselves, are not strengths. In addition, many candidates argued that because a study is a \"lab experiment\", cause and effect may be determined. In the case of Maguire, this is not correct as the study is quasi-experimental.
\nDiscuss one or more cultural influences on human cognition and/or behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more cultural influences on human cognition and/or behaviour.
\nIt is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between cognition and behaviour.
\nStudies investigating cultural influences on cognition and/or behaviour may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one cultural influence in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural influences in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nSL:
\nStronger responses to the question primarily discussed the influences of cultural dimensions (individualism and collectivism) on conformity rates or flashbulb memories. Candidates who used acculturation often focused on protective factors against acculturative stress and not the effects of acculturation.
\nWeaker responses described irrelevant research such as Asch's studies into conformity, Bandura's Bobo doll study or anecdotal evidence in support of their answer.
\nFamiliar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.
\nHL:
\nThere were mainly strong responses to this essay, focusing on the role of cultural dimensions, cultural norms, and acculturation on behaviour and/or cognition.
\nWhen discussing acculturation, many candidates did not focus on the effect of acculturation, but rather on protective factors against acculturative stress. Stronger responses addressed the role of acculturation on mental health, obesity, or tolerance to other cultures.
\nCritical thinking was often not well developed, focusing solely on the problem of generalizability. This was often a superficial approach, failing to note that the study was qualitative and did not have the goal of \"global\" generalization. Stronger responses discussed the difficulty of isolating cultural factors as variables, the methodology applied in studying cultural effects, and the dynamic nature of culture, making it a difficult construct to measure.
\nDiscuss one or more studies of the positive and/or negative effects of technologies on cognitive processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more studies of the positive and/or negative effects of technologies on cognitive processes.
\nCandidates may discuss the effects of technologies on one or more specific cognitive processes (such as memory, thinking and decision-making, perception, attention and/or language) or on cognitive processes in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nStudies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThere were many strong responses that clearly discussed one or more studies related to the influence of technology on cognitive processes. Some candidates failed to identify a cognitive process when explaining research or identified the process as \"academic performance\", \"emotion\" or \"stress.\" Some candidates focused on the role of social media on mental health which is not the focus of the question.
\nStronger candidates made explicit links between the research and models of memory, attention or decision making — that is, they explained why technology may have this effect on cognition. Some candidates discussed theories, such as transactive memory, but then did not use any research that demonstrated this theory. This earned low marks for criterion B.
\nSome research was quite complex and was misunderstood by candidates — for example, there were many inaccurate explanations of Rosser et al. (2007).
\nEvaluate one or more studies on the influence of emotion on cognitive processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an appraisal of one or more research studies of the influence of emotion on cognitive processes by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study or studies, not on a general evaluation of theories of emotion and cognition. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, this does not have to be evenly balanced.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nThere were many strong responses to this question, with the vast majority of candidates using Flashbulb Memory when describing the influence of emotion on cognitive processes. There were many in-depth evaluations from candidates, whereas weaker responses were lacking in developed strengths and weaknesses.
\nThere was a good variety of research used in this response. Most candidates used Brown & Kulik, Sharot et al., Neisser & Harsch or McGaugh & Cahill's studies on flashbulb memory. These were often described in detail, again the focus here was not always on the evaluation of the research and candidates lost marks because of this.
\nThe lack of well-described critical thinking was once again evident. Many responses merely provided some simple evaluation statements of the research studies, did not use terminology effectively or made evaluative comments with no clear explanation or link to the specific study that was being explained.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Studies related to diagnosis of any disorders (e.g. OCD, anorexia, depression) are acceptable and can achieve maximum marks as long as the focus is on reliability and/or diagnosis of those disorders. Responses may use studies referring to gender and cultural bias of diagnosis and can be awarded marks for these as long as the bias explicitly relates to issues of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn 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]. 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 gain [2].
\nMarks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies
\nMarks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nGenerally responses to this question were not very well done, as candidates tended to talk about factors influencing validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Many candidates also treated this as a potential \"Evaluate Rosenhan's study\" question, and this resulted in an essay detailing the procedure of the study, but often with little focus on findings, implications of the study or evaluation. Well-written responses reflected rather detailed knowledge of studies —popular choices were Lipton and Simon's (1985) study on reliability of diagnosis of randomly selected patients in a hospital in New York, and Bolton's (2002) cross-cultural study on the validity of the Western key concept of PTSD.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating prevalence rates of one or more psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating prevalence rates of one or more psychological disorders by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study or studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on the prevalence rates of psychological disorders. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThe disorder(s) chosen is/are likely to come from the list in the guide:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected study/studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn 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]. 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 gain [2].
\nMarks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.
\nMarks 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nWith some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as responses often failed to address the question. A large number of responses provided full essays explaining factors that influence the prevalence rate of one or more psychological disorder. In their responses candidates provided minimal reference to studies. In addition, critical thinking was usually not linked to the question.
\nIn high quality responses candidates chose one specific disorder (usually depression or PTSD) and clearly selected one or more studies and evaluated them in detail. Popular choices were: Garrison et al. (1995) investigating the incidence of PTSD in adolescents after Hurricane Andrew; Brown and Harris's (1977) study of gender vulnerability to depression, and Nolen-Hoeksema's (2001) study of gender rates in depression.
\nDiscuss one biological treatment and one psychological treatment for one or more psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one biological and one psychological treatment for one or more psychological disorders.
\nThe disorder(s) chosen is/are likely to come from the list in the guide:
\nBiological treatment could include, but is not limited to:
\nPsychological treatment could include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses may refer to an interactionist approach or a biopsychosocial approach to treatment. These responses might refer to the interactionist approach as one treatment or argue that two treatments are used for helping patients with a disorder. Both approaches are equally acceptable and can be credited up to full marks.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one biological treatment or more than one psychological treatment, credit should be given only to the first treatment.
\nThis question was less popular than the other two questions in the Abnormal Psychology section but the quality of responses was often good. Stronger responses reflected an understanding of treatment methods and how the effectiveness of treatments can be assessed. There were some pleasing responses which indicated appreciation of difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of treatment and ethical considerations concerned with treatments/therapies. Weaker responses focused on etiology of disorders or research investigating factors leading to development of disorders but failing to link this to treatments.
\nDiscuss one or more theories of brain development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of brain development.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses to this question may also use Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theory. For these responses marks should be awarded depending on how effectively responses link these to brain development.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nMarks for criterion A will be awarded for focus on theoretical explanations of brain development. Marks for criterion B will reflect the quality of the knowledge and understanding of the chosen theories. Marks for criterion C reflect how studies are presented and used in the response. Criterion D should assess critical thinking related to theories and/or studies.
\nUnfortunately, many candidates misread or misinterpreted the question — within this question all words are important and candidates who ignored the word \"theory\" or the word \"brain\" clearly missed a very important aspect of the question and their responses were responses which reflected general knowledge of Developmental Psychology but not knowledge relevant to this question. Very strong candidates answered this question particularly well, while candidates who were not as well prepared tended to do quite poorly here. The biggest weakness of some candidates was totally misunderstanding the question and writing responses on Piaget's and Vygotsky's theory of cognitive development but with no link to how this relates to the development of the brain. Other candidates recognized that the question had to focus on brain development but could only provide knowledge and evaluation of studies without providing a coherent explanation of how the brain develops. There were some (although not many) excellent responses to this question in which candidates clearly provided knowledge of theory of neuroplasticity and/or the maturational theory of brain development. Candidates in these responses also provided good knowledge of relevant studies investigating how the brain develops in different stages.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating influences on cognitive and/or social development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more studies investigating influences on cognitive and/or social development by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected study/studies. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not the influences of cognitive and/or social development. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nCandidates may evaluate one or more studies investigating specific aspects of cognitive and/or social development (for example memory, intelligence, gender development, peer relationship) or evaluate one or more studies investigating cognitive and/or social development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThe term “influence” may include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses to this question may also use Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theory. In these responses marks should be awarded depending on how effectively responses target and explain influences on cognitive and/or social development.
\nRelevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn 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]. 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 gain [2].
\nMarks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.
\nMarks 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was not a popular choice. Strengths included the correct identification of studies to illustrate factors which tend to influence cognitive and/or social development. Focus was often on trauma/deprivation, peers, poverty and nutrition as well as educational programmes/support from parents and educators. Weaknesses included a lack of focus on studies.
\nDiscuss one or more theories of attachment.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of attachment.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses referring to research of animals, such as Harlow’s study of rhesus monkeys should be linked to attachment in humans. Responses that do not explicitly make any link to human behaviour 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 markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nThis was a popular choice within the option. Occasionally examiners reported reading quite inspiring responses indicative of good teaching. Such responses tended to focus on Bowlby's evolutionary theory of attachment and/or on Ainsworth's theory of attachment styles with evidence of well-selected studies that were focused on the question. However, some responses to this question provided studies on attachment with minimal explanation of the concept of attachment, or focused on Harlow's study of rhesus monkeys without linking the findings to attachment in humans.
\nDiscuss the effectiveness of one or more health promotion programmes.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effectiveness of one or more health promotion programmes.
\nHealth promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant factors related to the effectiveness of health promotion may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nAlthough few candidates attempted this question, stronger candidates formed a good discussion of health promotion programmes — how they are conducted and a clear account of factors that impact the effectiveness of these programmes. Popular choices were: TRUTH campaign, anti-smoking campaign (Sly et al., 2002; Schum and Gold, 2007); National Tobacco Campaign, Australia (Woodward, 2003); NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, England and/or different food labelling programmes.
\nWeaker candidates made a more general attempt, discussing health in general and factors that lead to health/disease.
\nEvaluate one or more studies related to prevalence rates of health problems.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths and limitations of one or more studies related to the prevalence rates of health problems. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on prevalence rates of health problems. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nHealth problems are likely to come from the list in the guide:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn 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]. 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 gain [2].
\nMarks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.
\nMarks 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was the least popular question in this paper. When it was addressed it tended to attract well-prepared candidates who clearly focused on studies. A popular choice were studies related to rising prevalence rates of obesity and/or rising prevalence rates of smoking.
\nEvaluate the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths and limitations of the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nThis was the most popular question for the Health Psychology option. Answers ranged from rudimentary to quite good, where knowledge and understanding were presented with clarity and studies were used to draw out salient critical points.
\nStrengths for this question included candidates choosing mostly appropriate health problems and studies. Weaknesses appeared as a lack of critical thinking when responding to this question or overly focusing the critical thinking on research methods of studies investigating the topic but not linking this to the biopsychosocial model. Some responses gained fewer marks for criterion D as they only offered strengths of the model and ignored limitations.
\nDiscuss one or more explanations for why relationships change or end.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of explanations for why relationships change or end.
\nExplanations of why relationships change or end may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was a very popular question — probably the most popular question within the exam. Candidates provided responses which were clearly focused on the question and in general seemed well prepared for this question. A number of different explanations were provided, including but not limited to:
\nStrengths included correct discussion of these explanations in many different ways such as: supporting and/or contradictory evidence; methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research into the explanations for why relationships change or end; cultural/gender considerations and offering alternative explanations.
\nWeaknesses were rare, but some candidates had problems providing explanations and decided to solely focus on research studies and findings. Some weak responses tended to provide long accounts with general knowledge of the topic.
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations in studies investigating group dynamics.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more ethical considerations in research investigating group dynamics.
\nEthical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion related to ethical considerations may include, but is not limited to:
\nThis was a popular question but still the least popular question within the option. Candidates generated answers which tended to be too general and lacking a specific focus on which ethical considerations are relevant or problematic in studies investigating group dynamics. Often responses provided vague responses addressing general ethical considerations but failed to apply this knowledge when discussing/evaluating studies. The most popular choice was Sherif's (1966) field experiment on competition in groups — in a lot of responses candidates offered long and detailed descriptions of the procedure of the study but failed to address which ethical considerations were or were not addressed. Evidence of specific knowledge relevant to the question was too often provided in form of a simple statement that informed parental consent was obtained.
\nEvaluate one or more studies investigating prosocial behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term \"evaluate\" requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies related to prosocial behaviour. The focus of the evaluation should be on the study/studies, not on prosocial behaviour.
Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nIn 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]. 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 gain [2].
\nMarks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.
\nMarks 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was also a very popular question. Overall, responses reflected that candidates understood the question and could provide classic studies to illustrate prosocial behaviour. Most who attempted this question did fairly well. Responses provided many different studies — popular choices were:
\nIn the majority of cases, studies were correctly described, though not always fully evaluated. Weaker responses tended to focus more on presenting factors influencing prosocial behaviour or on theories explaining prosocial behaviour.
\nMany responses provided clear evidence of critical thinking by offering:
\nExplain how one principle that defines the biological level of analysis has been demonstrated in one example of research (theory or study).
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account of an appropriate principle and show how this principle is clearly demonstrated in a study or theory relevant to the biological level of analysis.
\nAcceptable principles may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses should focus on the link between the principle and the theory or study – for example, a specific example of what animal research teaches us about human behaviour.
\nIf a candidate explains more than one principle in relation to one or more theories or studies, credit should be given only to the first principle explained in the first theory or study used.
\nIf a relevant principle and a relevant theory or study are provided, but no explicit link is made between them, a maximum of [6] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate explains a principle making no link to an example of research at the biological level of analysis, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate makes reference to a study or theory at the biological level of analysis but no relevant principle is stated/identified, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
\nDescribe how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process, with reference to one research study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one biological factor affects one cognitive process.
\nPossible cognitive processes include, but are not limited to: memory, language acquisition, problem solving, attention, decision-making and perception.
\nResearch studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the description of how one biological factor affects one cognitive process, not only on the description of the study.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one biological factor, credit should be given only to the description of the first biological factor.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the description of the first cognitive process.
\nDescribe social learning theory with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\nThe learning outcome “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social learning theory in relation to one relevant study.
\nThe main aspects of social learning theory may include:
\nResponses may refer to studies such as, but not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing the theory, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate describes social learning theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nTo what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the merits of the principle that genetic inheritance influences behaviour.
\nCandidates may choose a single behaviour (such as intelligence, depression or obesity), or they may choose a number of behaviours and take a more holistic approach.
\nIn order to address the command term “to what extent”, candidates may address:
\nExamples of relevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nExplanations of the role of genetic inheritance may refer to concordance rates, specific research regarding the properties of specific genes, or findings from twin and adoption studies. If a candidate makes reference to research from evolutionary psychology, the focus of the response must be on how genetic inheritance influences the behaviour.
\nEvaluate one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing the strengths and limitations of one theory demonstrating the influence of emotion on one cognitive process. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nResponses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion, such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving or decision-making.
\nExamples of theories include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected theory includes, but is not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the evaluation of the theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process and not just on an evaluation of the studies. Responses that only evaluate studies and not the theory itself, should be awarded up to a maximum of [6] for criterion B, critical thinking.
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than one theory, credit should be given only to the first evaluation, unless the other theory or theories are clearly used to evaluate the main theory; for example, used to illustrate the strengths and/or limitations of the main theory.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nDiscuss why two particular research methods are used to investigate behaviour at the sociocultural level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of why two particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level of analysis.
\nResearch methods may include, but are not limited to, two of the following:
\nCandidates may address the different ways in which a research method is done – for example, a covert or naturalistic observation – but the focus should be on the nature of the research method itself.
\nDiscussion about why the methods are used might refer to the appropriateness of the methods for the aim, issues of validity and reliability, sample choice and size, ease and cost of the procedure and the generalizability of findings. Candidates may address the strengths of the methods as well as how they reflect the principles of the sociocultural level of analysis, that is, candidates could make clear how the selected research methods underpin one or more principles of the level of analysis.
\nExamples of research studies could include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than two research methods, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. Candidates may address other research methods and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss one or both of the two main research methods in the response.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one research method, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate discusses two types of experiments (e.g. field and laboratory), interviews (e.g. semi-structured and focus groups) or observations (e.g. covert and participant), this is considered a single research method.
\nTo what extent do sociocultural factors influence abnormal behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contributions of sociocultural factors influencing abnormal behaviour.
\nCandidates could choose to provide a general response on the extent to which sociocultural factors influence abnormal behaviour or they could provide a response discussing the extent to which sociocultural factors influence one specific disorder.
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to, the relevance of sociocultural factors for etiology, diagnosis and treatment.
\nSociocultural factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include but is not limited to:
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other factors (including biological and/or cognitive factors) in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”. Higher quality responses will probably argue that for most psychological disorders, the onset and development of the disorder is a result of complex interactions between biological, cognitive and/or sociocultural factors.
\nCandidates may consider a smaller number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of cognitive or sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss concepts of normality and abnormality.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes various concepts of normality and abnormality.
\nConcepts of normality and abnormality may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of explanations of normality and abnormality in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of explanations of normality and abnormality in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nEvaluate the use of an eclectic approach to treatment.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of an eclectic approach to treatment. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nAn eclectic approach to treatment refers to instances where the therapist selects treatments and strategies from a variety of current approaches. Responses may refer to an eclectic treatment in general or an eclectic treatment for specific disorders. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nMany examples of eclectic approaches to treatment are available, for example:
\nStrengths of the eclectic approach may include, but are not limited to:
\nLimitations of the eclectic approach may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nDiscuss one example of psychological research (theory or study) into adolescence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one theory or one study related to adolescence.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one theory or study, credit should be given only to the first theory or study. However, candidates may address other theories or studies and be awarded marks for this as long as these theories or studies are clearly used to discuss the main theory or study addressed in the response.
\nTo what extent does attachment in childhood play a role in the formation of relationships later in life?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that attachment in childhood has on relationships later in life.
\nIn order to respond to the command term, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to highlight that on one hand, research has found several indications of associations between attachment in childhood and relationship development in later life and on the other hand, there is no clear evidence of direct causality between attachment in childhood and formation of relationships later in life.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses referring to research with animals, such as Harlow’s studies with rhesus monkeys, are relevant but must be linked to attachment in humans.
\nResponses that focus only on descriptions of research on attachment in childhood with no link to the formation of relationships later in life (such as Ainsworth) should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nAnalyse cultural variation in gender roles.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “analyse” requires candidates to bring out (emphasize) the essential aspects of cultural variation in gender roles.
\nResponses may address how sociocultural factors such as media, stereotypes, ethnic and cultural experiences, peer, school and parental roles influence gender roles. It is appropriate to address cross-cultural differences in gender roles related to behaviour such as aggression, workplace roles/status, parenting behaviour, domestic work, and so on.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nExamples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may present one analysis of cultural variation in gender roles in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may present a number of analyses of cultural variation in gender roles in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nTo what extent do cognitive factors influence health-related behaviour (stress, substance abuse, addictive behaviour, overeating and/or obesity)?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the merits or otherwise of the influence of cognitive factors on health-related behaviour.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or biological factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may approach health-related behaviour as a whole or use specific examples of health-related behaviour. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nResponses may include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies that relate to cognitive factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nFactors that are identified should be directly related to health-related behaviour. If a candidate only addresses cognitive factors in general, without linking them to health-related behaviour, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nCandidates may address a smaller number of cognitive factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of cognitive factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nEvaluate one or more treatments for obesity.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more treatments for obesity by weighing up the strengths and the limitations of each. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nTreatment choices include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the treatments may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may address one treatment in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of treatments in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2] for organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for knowledge and comprehension.
\nResponses that only address prevention strategies should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nEvaluate one or more models and/or theories of health promotion.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more models or theories of health promotion. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nModels/theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may address one model or theory in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of models and/or theories in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nEvaluate psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of theories and/or studies relevant to strategies for reducing violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThere are a number of different strategies that candidates may refer to. A strategy is any plan of action or a programme for reducing violence.
\nExamples of psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may evaluate a small number of theories and/or studies relevant to strategies for reducing violence in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of theories and/or studies on the effectiveness of strategies for reducing violence in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss one or more biological origins of attraction.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one or more biological explanations for the origin of attraction.
\nResponses may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the biological explanation of attraction may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may address one or a small number of biological origins of attraction in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biological origins of attraction in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExplain why relationships may change or end.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons and causes, as to why relationships may change or end.
\nCandidates do not have to differentiate between relationships that change or end to gain high marks.
\nCandidates may address different types of relationships, for example, romantic relationships, marriages, friendship, family relationships.
\nResponses may address how factors such as predisposing personal factors, intimacy, commitment or similar/different interests can influence if relationships may change or end.
\nAs part of their explanation, candidates should outline the theories/studies that underpin these explanations, evaluate their effectiveness, or discuss their application in different relationships.
\nExplanations may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvidence of critical thinking may be demonstrated by, but is not limited to:
\nStudies could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may address a small number of explanations of why relationships may change or end in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of explanations of why relationships may change or end in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nEvaluate two or more theories of motivation in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of two or more theories of motivation used in sport psychology by weighing up the strengths and the limitations of each. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nTheories of motivation in sport include but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may evaluate two theories in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of theories to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations of theories of motivation in sports, the response should be awarded a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and understanding.
\nIf a candidate evaluates only one theory of motivation, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate only evaluates theories of motivation but does not apply them to sport psychology, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nDiscuss the use of two or more techniques for skill development in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of two or more techniques used for skill development in sport.
\nTechniques for skill development may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss two techniques in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of techniques to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nEvaluate one or more examples of psychological research relevant to sport psychology.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more psychological research theories/studies relevant to the study of sport psychology by weighing up the strengths and the limitations of each. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant psychological research may include, but is not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may evaluate one or a small number of studies/theories to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of studies/theories to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that describes some of the positive experiences of teenage motherhood that can occur in spite of challenges to the mothers’ future plans.
\n\n
In the United Kingdom, there is a general concern about teenage pregnancy because it is often associated with negative outcomes such as poverty, interrupted education and early entrance into the welfare system.
\nThe aim of this study was to investigate how teenage mothers experienced motherhood and how this had influenced their expectations of the future. The two female researchers already worked with teenage mothers in a city in the United Kingdom before the study. According to them, previous research has primarily focused on the disadvantages of early motherhood, and not on how young mothers can overcome obstacles, even gaining psychological benefit from having a child.
\nYoung mothers were identified based on specific criteria (for example, the child was born before the mother was twenty and was living with her). The mothers were found through a patient database of family doctors. Seventeen mothers were selected initially and nine agreed to be part of this purposive sample. The local research ethics committee gave ethical approval for the study. The participants were all informed about the study and their rights. They all gave consent to participate. The names of the participants were changed in the final report.
\nThe researchers carried out semi-structured interviews in the participants’ homes. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim to allow for inductive content analysis.
\nThe results showed that at this point in their lives the young mothers were very positive about their experience of motherhood in spite of the challenges. Most of them had felt an immediate bond with the baby once it was born. Some said it was the right decision to keep the baby and that being a mother had made them “grow up”. Some said that having responsibility for the baby made them more ambitious and determined to have a career although the pregnancy had for a time forced them to stop their education or work.
\nThe researchers concluded that early motherhood does not necessarily have only negative outcomes. It may also be the turning point to maturity and development of a career, especially if young mothers are supported by family, health professionals and society.
\n\n
[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood:
a qualitative study.” British Journal of General Practice, 2004, 54, 813–818.]
Explain one effect of participant expectations and one effect of researcher bias that could be relevant to this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons and causes, of one effect of participant expectations and one effect of researcher bias that could be relevant to this study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nParticipant expectations can be described as participant factors that could influence the outcome of the research.
\nEffects of participants’ expectations in this study could include, but are not limited to:
\nEffects of researcher bias can be described as researcher factors such as the researchers' beliefs or values that could potentially bias the research process. For example, the researchers argue that previous research on teenage mothers has mainly focused on the negative consequences of early motherhood (lines 6–9 “According to them, previous research has primarily focused…”).
\nEffects of researcher bias in this study could include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate explains more than one effect of participant expectations or more than one effect of researcher bias that could be relevant to the study, credit should be given only to the first explanation.
\nIf a candidate addresses only participant expectations or only researcher bias apply the markbands up to a maximum of [5].
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that describes some of the positive experiences of teenage motherhood that can occur in spite of challenges to the mothers’ future plans.
\n\n
In the United Kingdom, there is a general concern about teenage pregnancy because it is often associated with negative outcomes such as poverty, interrupted education and early entrance into the welfare system.
\nThe aim of this study was to investigate how teenage mothers experienced motherhood and how this had influenced their expectations of the future. The two female researchers already worked with teenage mothers in a city in the United Kingdom before the study. According to them, previous research has primarily focused on the disadvantages of early motherhood, and not on how young mothers can overcome obstacles, even gaining psychological benefit from having a child.
\nYoung mothers were identified based on specific criteria (for example, the child was born before the mother was twenty and was living with her). The mothers were found through a patient database of family doctors. Seventeen mothers were selected initially and nine agreed to be part of this purposive sample. The local research ethics committee gave ethical approval for the study. The participants were all informed about the study and their rights. They all gave consent to participate. The names of the participants were changed in the final report.
\nThe researchers carried out semi-structured interviews in the participants’ homes. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim to allow for inductive content analysis.
\nThe results showed that at this point in their lives the young mothers were very positive about their experience of motherhood in spite of the challenges. Most of them had felt an immediate bond with the baby once it was born. Some said it was the right decision to keep the baby and that being a mother had made them “grow up”. Some said that having responsibility for the baby made them more ambitious and determined to have a career although the pregnancy had for a time forced them to stop their education or work.
\nThe researchers concluded that early motherhood does not necessarily have only negative outcomes. It may also be the turning point to maturity and development of a career, especially if young mothers are supported by family, health professionals and society.
\n\n
[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood:
a qualitative study.” British Journal of General Practice, 2004, 54, 813–818.]
Evaluate the purposive sampling technique used in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the purposive sampling technique used in the study. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nThe purposive sample is constructed to serve a specific need or purpose. In this study, the researchers chose the participants because they met salient characteristics that are relevant to the research study (selection criteria). For example, in this study, the mother should have given birth to the child before she was twenty and the child should live with her.
\nStrengths of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:
\nLimitations of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may refer to other sampling methods but this should only be credited if it is done as part of their evaluation of the purposive sampling method used in this study.
\nResponses that refer to only strengths or only limitations of the purposive sampling method used in this study should be awarded up to a maximum of [5].
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that describes some of the positive experiences of teenage motherhood that can occur in spite of challenges to the mothers’ future plans.
\n\n
In the United Kingdom, there is a general concern about teenage pregnancy because it is often associated with negative outcomes such as poverty, interrupted education and early entrance into the welfare system.
\nThe aim of this study was to investigate how teenage mothers experienced motherhood and how this had influenced their expectations of the future. The two female researchers already worked with teenage mothers in a city in the United Kingdom before the study. According to them, previous research has primarily focused on the disadvantages of early motherhood, and not on how young mothers can overcome obstacles, even gaining psychological benefit from having a child.
\nYoung mothers were identified based on specific criteria (for example, the child was born before the mother was twenty and was living with her). The mothers were found through a patient database of family doctors. Seventeen mothers were selected initially and nine agreed to be part of this purposive sample. The local research ethics committee gave ethical approval for the study. The participants were all informed about the study and their rights. They all gave consent to participate. The names of the participants were changed in the final report.
\nThe researchers carried out semi-structured interviews in the participants’ homes. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim to allow for inductive content analysis.
\nThe results showed that at this point in their lives the young mothers were very positive about their experience of motherhood in spite of the challenges. Most of them had felt an immediate bond with the baby once it was born. Some said it was the right decision to keep the baby and that being a mother had made them “grow up”. Some said that having responsibility for the baby made them more ambitious and determined to have a career although the pregnancy had for a time forced them to stop their education or work.
\nThe researchers concluded that early motherhood does not necessarily have only negative outcomes. It may also be the turning point to maturity and development of a career, especially if young mothers are supported by family, health professionals and society.
\n\n
[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood:
a qualitative study.” British Journal of General Practice, 2004, 54, 813–818.]
Explain two or more ethical considerations relevant to this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of two or more ethical considerations that could be relevant to the research study in the stimulus material.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nRelevant ethical considerations in this study include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may refer to ethical considerations taken by the researchers in the study in the stimulus material and/or considerations that could have been taken. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may explain a small number of ethical considerations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of ethical considerations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate explains only one ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [5].
\nDescribe one effect of neurotransmission on human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account that clearly illustrates one effect of neurotransmission on human behaviour. Examples of responses include, but are not limited to:
Studies may be presented, but the focus of the response should be on the effects of neurotransmission on behaviour and not on the description of a study.
\nAnimal research may be used to describe an effect of neurotransmission, but the response must then be linked to human behaviour. If there is no explicit example of a link to human behaviour, a maximum of [5] may be awarded.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one effect of neurotransmission, credit should be given only to the first effect described. If a candidate describes one effect that involves several neurotransmitters (for example, Fisher on the role of neurotransmission in human attraction) this would be acceptable as the focus of the question is on neurotransmission.
\n\n
Describe one ethical consideration related to one research study at the cognitive level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration in relation to one research study at the cognitive level of analysis. Ethical considerations can be positive (what guidelines could be followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations which may be discussed include, but are not limited to:
\nResearch studies could include studies that investigate biological or sociocultural factors that affect cognitive process. However, responses should clearly relate the study to the cognitive level of analysis and must focus on the cognitive aspects of the research.
\nResponses should make a clear link between the study at the cognitive level of analysis and the ethical consideration. If there is no explicit link between the study and the ethical consideration, award up to a maximum of [6].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration in relation to one or more research studies, credit should be given only to the first ethical consideration described in relation to the first research study used. Candidates may briefly refer to another ethical consideration or considerations but this should only be in the context of one ethical consideration that is explicitly described.
\nIf a candidate describes one ethical consideration without making reference to one research study from the cognitive level of analysis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate describes a study but one ethical consideration is not explicitly addressed, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
\n\n
Describe one explanation for the formation of stereotypes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one explanation for the formation of stereotypes.
\nResearch explaining the formation of stereotypes may include but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one explanation of the formation of stereotypes, credit should be given only to the first description.
\nWhether a theory and/or a study is presented, a clear link to the formation of stereotypes must be made for full marks to be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only presents a relevant study without making reference to the formation of stereotypes, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
\nDiscuss the use of one or more brain imaging technologies in investigating the relationship between biological factors and behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the use of one or more brain imaging technologies in investigating the relationship between biological factors and behaviour.
\nBrain imaging technologies could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may refer to studies such as:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response must be on how brain imaging technology is used to understand the relationship between biological factors and behaviour. Although an understanding of how the technology functions may be included, it is not required for top marks to be awarded.
\nCandidates may discuss one brain imaging technology in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss more than one brain imaging technology in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may address one biological factor, or more than one. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss how social and/or cultural factors affect one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how social and/or cultural factors affect one cognitive process. As the concepts of social and cultural factors are arguably very much related, a distinction between the two is not necessary.
\nCandidates should give a considered review of the way in which social and/or cultural factors affect how people process information, for example, memory, thinking, perception, attention, decision-making or language.
\nExamples of appropriate factors include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the cultural and/or social factors may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first discussion.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one social and/or cultural factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A and a maximum of [2] for criterion C.
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss the role of one or more cultural dimensions on human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of
one or more cultural dimensions on human behaviour.
Cultural dimensions include, but are not limited to:
\nIt is important that candidates make a link between cultural dimension(s) and human behaviour, demonstrating how the selected cultural dimensions affect human behaviour. For example, when discussing the role of individualism and collectivism, responses may address human behaviour such as conformity, attribution, compliance or depression. When discussing the role of masculinity and femininity, responses may refer to gender roles, competitiveness, materialism or human relationships. When discussing the role of Confucian dynamism, responses may refer to how it affects management leadership, creative behaviour, identification with workplace, perseverance, and/or respect for tradition.
\nIf a candidate addresses one or more cultural dimensions but does not explicitly link any of these to human behaviour, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B , critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nDiscussion may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one cultural dimension in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural dimensions in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDescribe one study investigating the reliability of one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating the reliability of one cognitive process. The description should include the aim, procedure, results and conclusion of the study.
\nCognitive processes may include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate only describes the reliability of one cognitive process without making reference to a
relevant research study, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first description.
\nDescribe the “etic” concept, making reference to one example.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\n“Etic” refers to an approach to studying the role of culture on behaviour. This approach describes or explains behaviours across cultures to find out what could be universal in human behaviour. Studies may be focused on psychological issues related to universal human behaviour or finding similarities/differences across cultures.
\nA description of the “etic” concept may include, but is not limited to:
\nExamples of “etic” research may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may describe the etic approach making reference to an example that is not a research study (eg studying mental health). As long as they describe the example clearly and with detail they may receive full marks.
\nIf a candidate describes the “etic” concept without making reference to one example from the sociocultural level of analysis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate example without describing the etic concept, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].
\nDiscuss two effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
\nCandidates should explicitly identify an appropriate environmental factor and the relevant physiological process.
\nExamples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of studies include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than two effects, credit should be given only to the first two discussions.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one effect, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. The response does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nDiscuss the use of technology in investigating one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the ways in which technology is used in investigating one cognitive process.
\nCognitive processes may include, but are not limited to: memory; perception; attention; language; decision-making.
\nExamples include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIt is important that candidates discuss the use of the technology, and not simply evaluate studies. Although an actual understanding of how the technology works may be beneficial, it is not required for top marks to be awarded.
\nCandidates may discuss one type of technology in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a number of different technologies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses the use of technology in investigating more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the discussion of the first cognitive process.
\nEvaluate social identity theory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of social identity theory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nStudies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:
\nTajfel’s studies on social groups and identities
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nIf a candidate only evaluates research and does not directly evaluate the theory, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nContrast one individual approach (psychological, not biomedical) and one group approach to the treatment of one disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of differences between one individual approach and one group approach to the treatment of one disorder.
\nExpect a range of different approaches to treatment to be offered in response to the question. Individual treatments could include, but are not limited to: systematic desensitization, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and person-centred therapy. Group approaches could include, but are not limited to: group cognitive therapy, group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), or family therapy.
\nResponses could contrast:
\nIf a candidate contrasts the use of one individual approach and one group approach to the treatment of more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the part of the response relevant for the first disorder.
\nCandidates may address the use of one individual approach and one group approach to the treatment of a general disorder (for example, an eating disorder) or a more specific type of disorder (for example, anorexia/bulimia). Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nPossible disorders likely to be addressed are major depressive disorder, anorexia and bulimia, but other disorders are equally acceptable.
\nAlthough the focus of the question is on individual and group approaches, candidates may, as part of the response, include reference to a combination of biomedical and other approaches. However, contrasting a biomedical approach with either an individual approach or a group approach to treatment is not appropriate.
\nIf a candidate contrasts the use of one individual approach and one group approach to treatment but does not refer to a specific disorder, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate compares and contrasts the use of one individual approach and one group approach to treatment rather than contrasting, the response should be awarded up to full credit for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate only compares the use of one individual approach and one group approach to treatment rather than contrasting, the response should be awarded up to full credit for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate only describes and evaluates one approach to treatment with no specific reference to another approach to treatment, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nTo what extent do biological factors influence abnormal behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe 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.
\nBiological factors could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates 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.
\nDiscuss one or more cultural considerations in diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of cultural considerations relevant to diagnosis.
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one cultural consideration in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural considerations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThe focus of the response must be on cultural considerations in diagnosis. If cultural considerations related to abnormal psychology in general, or treatment of specific disorders, are addressed, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate discusses diagnosis but makes no reference to cultural considerations (for example, provides a general response about validity and reliability of diagnosis with no link to culture) the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nExamine how one or more sociocultural factors influence human development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider how sociocultural factors affect human development in a way that uncovers the interrelationships between sociocultural factors and human development.
\nSociocultural factors influencing human development may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses must focus on the sociocultural influence and must make a clear link between the selected sociocultural factor(s) and human development. However, candidates may address biological and/or cognitive factors and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to clarify the sociocultural influence on human development.
\nCandidates may discuss (one or) a small number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExamine the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to uncover the assumptions and interrelationships between physical change and identity development during adolescence.
\nRelevant content may provide an outline of the emergence of primary and secondary sexual characteristics then show how that affects identity formation during adolescence, such as:
\nThe examined points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThe answer should focus on the link between physical changes and identity development. It should examine the fact that physical changes have psychological ramifications that contribute to an adolescent’s sense of self.
\nIf a candidate only addresses development of identity or only addresses physical change in adolescence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nEvaluate one theory of cognitive development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one theory of cognitive development. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than one theory, credit should be given only to the first evaluation. However, candidates may address other theories and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate the main theory addressed in the response.
\nAlthough attachment theory is actually a factor in social rather than cognitive development, a candidate may be able to make a direct link between attachment and cognitive development. When this direct link has been made, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nEvaluate two strategies for coping with stress.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of two strategies used to cope with stress. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant strategies (including models and techniques) may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may also address ineffective or unhealthy coping strategies, such as drug taking, alcohol abuse, smoking, overeating, or the use of defence mechanisms.
\nEvaluation of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf only one strategy is evaluated, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than two strategies, credit should be given only to the first two evaluations. However, candidates may address other strategies and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate discusses only general issues related to stress and does not address strategies, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nDiscuss two or more factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.
\nIt is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between overeating and obesity.
\nFactors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss two factors related to overeating and the development of obesity in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of factors related to overeating and the development of obesity in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nExplain two or more factors related to the development of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account of factors related to the development of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour, including reasons or causes.
\nCandidates do not need to distinguish between factors related to either substance abuse or addictive behaviour.
\nRelevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not
limited to:
Candidates may explain two factors related to the development of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of factors related to the development of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate explains only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nExplain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons, for cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
\nCross-cultural differences may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may use a small number of cross-cultural differences in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may use a larger number of cross-cultural differences in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of communication in maintaining human relationships.
\nRelevant studies and/or theories related to the role of communication in maintaining human relationships may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nDescriptions of research on communication that do not demonstrate the role of communication in maintaining relationships should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nDiscuss the effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two strategies for reducing violence.
\nA strategy is any plan of action or a programme for reducing violence. It is appropriate for candidates to address models, studies and theories related to strategies for reducing violence.
\nExamples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses more than two strategies for reducing violence, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. However, candidates may address other strategies for reducing violence and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one strategy for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nTo what extent do sociocultural factors influence behaviour in sport?
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors on behaviour in sport. It may be appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or cognitive factors in sport in order to respond to the command term “to what extent.”
\nResponses could address individual behaviour or team behaviour in sport. Sociocultural factors could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may consider a small number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExplain relationships between team cohesion and performance.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account including reasons or causes for relationships between team cohesion and performance.
\nThe word “team” should be interpreted to include sports in which all team members participate at the same time (for example, football) or in which team members participate one at a time (for example, track and field).
\nStudies include, but are not limited to:
\nEvidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:
\nCandidates may explain one or a small number of relationships between team cohesion and performance to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of relationships to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss two or more reasons for using drugs in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more reasons for using drugs in sport.
\nThe question is specifically asking about reasons for using drugs in sport. Discussion of addiction or drug abuse is not the focus of the question. Candidates may address both licit and illicit use of drugs in sport. A discussion of blood doping in sport is an appropriate topic for use in a response.
\nReasons for using drugs in sport include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research includes, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss two reasons in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of reasons in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one reason, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nDescribe one study related to localization of function in the brain.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study related to localization of function in the brain.
Candidates should clearly identify the specific part of the brain and its function, and use a relevant study to demonstrate localization of function.
Responses should describe the aim, procedure, findings and/or conclusions of the study.
Examples of localization include, but are not limited to:
• localization of speech production/understanding
• the role of the hippocampus and memory
• the role of the amygdala in aggression
• the role of the prefrontal lobe in decision-making.
If Sperry and Gazzaniga’s study of split-brain patients is described, it is important that the focus of the response is on localization of function.
\n
If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first description.
If a candidate addresses localization of function without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate describes a study that is not relevant to localization of function, [0] should be awarded.
Describe one ethical consideration related to one study at the sociocultural level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one study at the sociocultural level of analysis.
The ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
Ethical considerations which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:
• deception
• protection from physical or mental harm
• briefing and debriefing
• right to withdraw from a study
• informed consent
• anonymity/confidentiality.
Responses should make a clear link between the study at the sociocultural level of analysis and the ethical consideration. If there is no explicit link between the study and the ethical consideration, award up to a maximum of [6].
If a candidate describes one ethical consideration without making reference to one research study from the sociocultural level of analysis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4].
If a candidate describes a study from the sociocultural level of analysis but one ethical consideration is not addressed, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
If a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration or addresses more than one study, credit should be given only to the first ethical consideration or the first study.
Explain how one principle that defines the cognitive level of analysis may be demonstrated in one example of research (theory or study).
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands on the next page when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one principle that defines the cognitive level of analysis is clearly demonstrated in one relevant theory or study.
Acceptable principles include, but are not limited to:
• cognitive processes can be scientifically investigated
• cognitive processes are important mediators between stimuli and responses
• mental representations guide behaviour
• cognitive processing can be compared to computer function
After outlining the principle and giving a brief summary of one study or theory, candidates should make an explicit link between the research and the principle. If a relevant principle and research are identified but are not explicitly linked, then apply the markbands up to a maximum of [6].
If a candidate explains a principle without making reference to research, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
If a candidate only describes a study or theory relevant to the cognitive level of analysis without addressing a principle at the cognitive level of analysis, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
If a candidate explains more than one principle and/or uses more than one example of research, credit should be given only to the first explanation of the first principle and to the first example demonstrating that principle.
Examine one interaction between cognition and physiology in terms of behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “examine” requires candidates to consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and interrelationships between cognition and physiology in terms of behaviour.
In examining the interaction, examples may be either uni-directional (that is, one factor influences the other factor) or bi-directional (that is, looking at the true interdependence of both factors), but candidates are not required to make the distinction. The focus of the response, however, must be on the interaction between the cognitive and physiological factors.
Uni-directional interactions include, but are not limited to:
• the role of acetylcholine or beta-amyloid proteins in Alzheimer’s disease (eg Lorenzo et al. 2000)
• the effect of meditation on physiological processes (for example, Davidson, 2004; Luders et al. 2009)
• the role of the hippocampus in memory (for example, Maguire et al. 2000; Milner,1957).
Bi-directional interactions include, but are not limited to:
• models of emotions (for example, LeDoux’s The Emotional Brain model, Schachter & Singer’s two-factor theory)
• Ramachandran & Hirstein (1998) on perception and pain in phantom limb syndrome
• stress and immune function (for example, Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 1984)
• cognitive appraisal and biological reactions (for example, Lazarus and Folkman, 1975; Speisman, 1964).
The examination of the interaction may include, but is not limited to:
• methodological considerations
• the relevance of animal studies
• the issue of reductionism
• the role of information processing in behaviour
• supporting and/or contradicting evidence
If a candidate examines more than one interaction between cognition and physiology in terms of behaviour, credit should be given only to the first interaction.
\n
Evaluate schema theory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of schema theory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
Research may include, but is not limited to:
• Bartlett’s (1932) seminal study “War of the Ghosts”
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) on schema processing as a consequence of leading questions
• Anderson and Pichert’s (1978) study on the effect of schema processing on memory encoding and retrieval
• Wynn and Logie’s (1998) study using real-life experiences in schema processing
• Brewer and Treyen’s (1981) “office schema” study
• Piaget’s studies on the reorganization of schema during child development
• studies on gender schemas (for example, Martin et al., 1995; Bee, 1999).
Evaluation of the theory may include, but is not limited to:
• the degree of empirical support
• methodological considerations of research used to support the theory
• application to real life (for example, eye witness testimony, stereotypes)
• predictive value (for example, in research studies on stereotyping)
• if the theory has relevance for understanding cognition and/or behaviour (for example, gender or cultural roles)
• Cohen’s (1993) criticism of schema theory regarding the vagueness of the concept.
If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\n
Discuss one or more examples of psychological research (theories or studies) on conformity to group norms.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more examples of psychological research (theories or studies) on conformity.
\n
Theories may include, but are not limited to:
• informational/normative social influence theory
• social comparison theory
• bystander effect
• groupthink
Studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Asch (1951, 1952, 1956) testing conformity under non-ambiguous conditions
• Sherif (1935) testing conformity with autokinetic effect illusion
• Crutchfield (1955) on the influence of intellectual competence and personality
• Moscovici et al. (1969, 1976, 1985) on minority influence
• Berry (1967) on the role of cultural dimensions
• Kagitcibasi (1984) on cultural norms and conformity
• Bond and Smith (1996) on changes over time and cross-cultural differences.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• methodological, cultural, ethical and gender considerations
• contrary explanations and/or findings
• application of the theory and/or empirical findings.
If research addressing obedience, rather than conformity, is discussed, no marks should be awarded for this discussion.
Responses that focus on one example of research must include other theories and/or studies in the discussion in order to be awarded marks in the top markband for criterion A.
Discuss the relationship between etiology and therapeutic approach(es) in relation to one disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review about the link between etiology and therapeutic approach.
Anxiety disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders will most likely be presented. It is, however, acceptable to use other examples of disorders.
This question could be addressed in general by pointing out a variety of etiologies and how each influences the course of treatment. For example, depression may be explained from a biomedical viewpoint (for example, the serotonin hypothesis). Therefore, treatment involves prescribing a number of drugs used to treat depression based on theories of the brain chemistry involved.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural considerations
• empirical evidence
• methodological considerations of research studies
• gender considerations related to the impact that the therapeutic approach may have
• a multifaceted approach may be considered the most effective – combining several approaches to treatment as well as helping the patient handle risk factors in the environment
• in reality, practitioners may disregard the link to etiology in choice of treatment.
If a candidate discusses more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the first response.
Candidates may address one therapeutic approach in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of therapeutic approaches in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Candidates may address the question using a general approach to etiology, for example the biomedical explanation of disorders, or by using a specific approach such as the serotonin hypothesis. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Candidates who use generic terms such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders instead of using the correct terminology such as major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder or anorexia/bulimia should not be penalized.
If a candidate discusses the relationship between etiology and therapeutic approaches but does not refer to a specific disorder, the response should be awarded a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Discuss cultural variations in the prevalence of psychological disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes a range of cultural variations in the prevalence of disorders.
The term “prevalence” refers to the percentage of individuals within a population who are affected by a specific disorder at a given time. The prevalence of any psychological disorder may be discussed.
Responses may include, but are not limited to:
• reference to an increase in diagnoses related to differences in cultural norms (for example, an increase in diagnoses of depression or eating disorders in women)
• addressing cultural factors that seem to increase the risk of developing affective or eating disorders
• reference to evidence that with increasing Westernization, rates of certain disorders tend to increase
• addressing changes in diagnostic screening which help mental health professions become more culturally aware in their diagnoses
• the prevalence of culture-bound disorders
• the interaction between biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors
• some prevalence rates are consistent across cultures, for example, schizophrenia
• how emic versus etic approaches affect prevalence rates.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Okulate et al. (2004) – core symptoms of depression are shared in different cultures
• Jaeger et al. (2002) – body dissatisfaction suggesting significant differences between cultures
• Dutton (2009) – cultural variations in prevalence of major depression could be due to cultural differences in stress, standard of living and reporting bias.
Candidates may discuss a small number of cultural variations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural variations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Candidates may discuss (one or) a small number of disorders in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of disorders in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss two or more ethical considerations in diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more ethical considerations in diagnosis.
Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
• consequences of an incorrect diagnosis (for example, self-fulfilling prophecies)
• effects of labelling
• the possibility of stigmatization once a client is diagnosed
• confidentiality of diagnosis
• over-diagnosis of certain disorders (for example, in relation to gender and culture)
• bias in diagnosis.
Responses may include, but are not limited to, the following theories and studies:
• Scheff (1966): labelling theory applied to the term “mentally ill”
• Thoits (1985) self-labelling processes in mental illness
• Broverman et al. (1970): gender bias in diagnosis
• Rosenhan et al. (1973): being sane in insane places
• Szasz's claim that most mental disorders should be considered as problems in living.
Candidates may refer to ethical considerations related to treatment, institutionalization, cultural/gender or other issues, and these should be credited if they are explicitly linked to diagnosis.
Candidates may discuss two ethical considerations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of ethical considerations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate discusses only one ethical consideration in diagnosis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
To what extent do social and/or environmental variables affect cognitive development?
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of social and/or environmental variables to cognitive development. It may be appropriate and useful for candidates to address the influence of other factors (including biological factors) in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\n
The variables studied do not have to be specifically identified as social or environmental as they are arguably very much related.
Candidates may address social/environmental variables in relation to specific aspects of cognitive development (for example, memory, intelligence or attention) or address cognitive development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Candidates may present positive influences of social/environmental variables (for example, Head Start programmes or parental training) as well as negative influences (for example, deprivation or trauma) on cognitive development.
Variables may include, but are not limited to:
• interactions with parents, siblings, peers, teachers and other significant figures (for example, Farah et al., 2008; Clark, 1993; Tizard, 1982)
• cultures differ in the kinds of cognitive skills that are valued and consequently encouraged and developed (Vygotsky, 1978; Cole and Scribner, 1974)
• children living in poverty are more likely to suffer from learning disabilities and developmental delays (for example, Rutter’s studies; Krugman, 2008; Schoon et al, 2002)
• malnutrition can influence cognitive development (Bhoomika et al., 2008)
• early nutritional supplements in the form of protein and increased calories can have positive long-term consequences for cognitive development (Pollitt, 1995).
Animal studies may be used to support the answer as long as they are explicitly linked to human cognitive development.
If a candidate addresses how social/environmental factors influence attachment and emotional development the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Candidates may address a small number of variables in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of variables in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss two strategies to build resilience.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two strategies to build resilience.
\nIt is appropriate for candidates to address models, studies and theories related to resilience in order to provide a discussion of strategies to build resilience.
\n
Strategies to build resilience may include but are not limited to:
• social programmes for youth such as Head Start or the Big Brothers Big Sisters Programme (Tierney et al., 1985)
• parent education programmes (Sanders et al., 2002)
• programmes developing skills to protect and promote well-being (for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and social skills training)
• stress inoculation training
• programmes to develop psychological strengths (for example, anger management).
Discussion may include but is not limited to:
• the importance of age and/or maturity of the individual
• the danger of a reductionist approach as resilience is complex and multiple ways of promoting it should be proposed
• the effectiveness of the strategies
• methodological, cultural and gender considerations
• supporting and contradicting theories and findings of studies.
If a candidate discusses more than two strategies, credit should be given only to the first two strategies discussed. However, candidates may address other strategies and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.
If a candidate discusses only one strategy, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
If a candidate discusses only general issues related to resilience and does not address a strategy, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to [2] for criterion C, organization.
Contrast two examples of psychological research (theories or studies) relevant to developmental psychology.
\nThe command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between two examples of psychological research (theories or studies), referring to both of them throughout.
\n
Candidates should address research on the topics covered in the psychology guide that is, cognitive development, social development (attachment and resilience), and identity development (adolescence and gender roles).
Although candidates are more likely to contrast two theories or two studies, it is acceptable to contrast a theory and a study.
Research may include but are not limited to:
• theories or studies on cognitive development (eg Piaget, Vygotsky, Kohlberg, Bruner)
• identity research (eg Erikson, Marcia, Elkind, Coleman)
• research on attachment (eg Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hazan and Shaver)
• theories or studies on resilience (eg Cyrulnik, Werner)
• gender role theories or studies (eg Kohlberg, Bem, Mead).
Responses may also focus on general theories such as social learning theory, psychodynamic theory or evolutionary theory. This approach is acceptable as long as these theories are relevant and clearly linked to developmental psychology.
Differences between the research may include, but is not limited to:
• contrary findings or explanations
• cultural and gender considerations
• applications of the empirical findings or theory such as the impact on education
• methodological and ethical considerations
• stages versus continuous process
Animal studies may be used to support the answer as long as they are explicitly linked to human developmental psychology.
If a candidate only describes and evaluates or compares two examples of psychological research without contrasting them, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [6] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B,critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
If a candidate contrasts more than two examples of research, credit should be given only to the contrast of the first two examples of research.
Discuss social and/or psychological aspects of stress.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of social and/or psychological aspects of stress. There is no need for candidates to distinguish between social and psychological aspects of stress.
Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:
• Kemeny et al.’s (2005) social self-preservation theory
• Evans and Kim’s (2007) or Fernald and Gunnar’s (2008) studies on the relationship between poverty and stress
• Taylor et al.’s (2000) theory (tend and befriend) and related studies on gender-specific responses to stress
• O’Driscoll and Cooper’s (1994) study on coping with work-related stress.
• Kamen and Seligman’s (1987) study on attributional style and health levels
• Speisman et al.’s (1964) study on the role of appraisal in stress experience
• Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress
Aspects of stress may include, but are not limited to:
• stress in the workplace
• coping strategies
• social support
• mindfulness-based stress reduction
• causes, consequences and/or strategies for dealing with stress.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural and gender considerations
• application of research
• methodological and ethical considerations
• difficulties in distinguishing between social and psychological aspects of stress
• empirical and/or contrary findings or explanations.
Candidates may address a small number of social/psychological aspects of stress in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of social/psychological aspects of stress in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Discuss the effectiveness of one or more health promotion strategies.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review regarding the effectiveness of one or more health promotion strategies.
There is no explicit reference to a specific area of health psychology in this question so candidates may choose any relevant area, for example drug abuse or obesity. However, the response may also include an area not specifically mentioned in the programme, such as practising safe sex to prevent HIV.
It is appropriate for candidates to address models and theories of health promotion such as the health belief model, stages of change model, theory of reasoned action etc., or health promotion programmes in their discussion of a health promotion strategy. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Relevant health promotion strategies may include, but are not limited to:
• the Victoria (Australia) campaign, “Go for your life” promoting healthy eating and exercise in schools (2004)
• the Florida (US) campaign, “TRUTH” an anti-smoking campaign arranged by and aimed at adolescents (1998–1999)
• the Canadian community-based peer intervention programme to prevent pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol (Carr, 1994)
• social learning theory (for example, the Sabido method to encourage safe sex practices).
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• challenges in measuring outcomes of strategies and campaigns
• conditions under which the strategy may be employed
• cultural and ethical considerations
• empirical evidence
• comparison and/or contrast of health promotion strategies
Candidates may discuss the effectiveness of one health promotion strategy in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss the effectiveness of more than one health promotion strategy in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Evaluate one or more prevention strategies for obesity.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of the chosen prevention strategies by weighing up the strengths and limitations of each. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
It is appropriate for candidates to address programmes, models, studies and theories related to prevention strategies for obesity in their evaluation. If a candidate refers to a treatment as a strategy to prevent relapse this is acceptable so long as the focus of the response is on prevention.
Prevention strategies aim to change an individual’s lifestyle by targeting healthier eating, more exercise or both. Prevention strategies could include, but are not limited to:
• government intervention programmes, such as requiring labelling of all food products or imposing zoning laws for better access to healthy food markets (Ashe et al., 2003)
• campaigns promoting healthy eating (Golan et al., 1998)
• exercise awareness campaigns (Huhman et al., 2005)
• national health campaigns, such as the British Nutrition Foundation’s eatwell plate which emphasizes healthy eating (2007).
Evaluation of the selected strategies may include but is not limited to:
• methodological considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• empirical and/or contrary findings or explanations
• the effectiveness of prevention strategies (and the difficulty in determining the effectiveness)
• multifaceted approaches to obesity.
If a candidate provides general knowledge of how dieting and exercise help in overcoming obesity with no link to prevention strategies or reference to psychological research, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
Candidates may evaluate one prevention strategy for obesity in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of prevention strategies for obesity in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
To what extent do biological factors influence human relationships?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors in human relationships. It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address cognitive and/or sociocultural factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
Candidates may address any aspect(s) of the psychology of human relationships (for example, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and/or violence).
Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:
• evolutionary explanations of altruism (for example, Dawkin’s selfish gene theory) and/or violence (for example, McAndrew, 2009) and/or attraction (for example, Wedekind, 1995)
• hormonal and/or neurotransmitter influence on trust and bonding (for example, Marazziti and Canale, 2004; Bradford and McLean, 1984)
• brain damage or disease influencing violent behaviour (for example, Soyka, Graz, Bottlender et al. 2007; Grafman, et al., 1996)
• brain activity influencing violence (for example, Raine, 1997)
• genetic factors in violent behaviour (for example, the warrior gene – MAOI (monoamine oxidase inhibitors).
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.
Discuss two or more factors influencing bystanderism.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors influencing bystanderism.
Bystanderism can be defined as the tendency of a person not to intervene despite awareness of another person’s need.
Factors may include, but are not limited to:
• the role of the number of people available to help (for example, diffusion of responsibility, Latané and Darley, 1968)
• the informational social influence (for example, pluralistic ignorance, Latané and Darley, 1968)
• cognitive dissonance and arousal (for example, Piliavin, 1981)
• the cost benefit analysis of helping (for example, Piliavin et al., 1969)
• personality and/or social norms (for example, Oliner and Oliner, 1989)
• cultural norms (for example, Levin, 1990)
• fear of making a social blunder – social apprehension (for example, Shotland and Straw, 1976)
• the time factor (for example, good Samaritan study, Darley and Batson, 1973).
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural considerations
• role of historical context
• methodological considerations
• empirical evidence
• arguments for the existence of altruism
• the possibility of implementing strategies for reducing bystanderism.
If a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Candidates may address two factors influencing bystanderism in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of factors influencing bystanderism in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate discusses only general issues related to bystanderism and does not address any factors influencing bystanderism, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Evaluate one or more sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
Explanations may include, but are not limited to:
• social identity theory (for example, Maass, 2003)
• social learning theory (for example, Bandura, 1961)
• negative social schemas (for example, Bradshaw, 2004)
• deindividuation (for example, Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb, 1952)
• social interaction approach (for example, Tedeschi and Felson, 1994)
• subculture of violence theory/Culture of Honour (for example, Nisbett and Cohen,1996).
Evaluation of the sociocultural explanation(s) may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural and/or gender considerations
• application of the explanations
• empirical findings that support or refute the explanation
• comparison/contrast to other explanations.
Although the main focus of the response should be on sociocultural explanations, cognitive and biological explanations are acceptable in order to emphasize a strength or limitation of the explanation.
If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
Candidates may evaluate one sociocultural explanation of the origins of violence in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
Explain the role of goal-setting in the motivation of individuals engaged in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, related to the role of goal-setting in the motivation of individuals engaged in sport.
Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:
• the role of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (for example, Vallerand and Losier, 1999)
• achievement goal theory (for example, Duda and Hall, 2001)
• the relationship between goal-setting and performance (for example, Weinbert et al., 1994)
• the role of outcome, performance, and process goals (for example, Steinberg et al., 2000)
• the relationship between goals and perception of success in children engaged in sport (for example, Duda et al., 1998)
• SMART – components of effective goal setting (for example, Smith, 1994)
• ego orientation versus task orientation (for example, Elliot and Dweck, 1988)
• the role of goal-setting in regulating performance and increasing self-efficacy (for example, Locke and Latham, 1981; 2006)
Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking could include:
• analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations
• application of empirical support in relation to the role of goal-setting
• using evidence from studies that support or disconfirm the importance of the role of goal-setting
• questioning the direction of cause and effect.
Descriptions of research on goal-setting in motivation without a link to motivation in sport should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Discuss two or more effects of drug use in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more effects of drug use in sport. Effects may contribute positively and/or negatively to an athlete’s performance.
Effects of drug use may include, but are not limited to:
• physical effects such as quicker healing from injury, weight gain, liver/kidney damage, increased risk of heart damage/stroke, weakened tendons
• psychological effects such as increased aggression, increased risk of mental illness, mood swings (including “roid rage” as a result of steroid use)
• addiction and withdrawal symptoms
• masculinization and feminization of athletes
• enhanced performance
• the masking of pain, leading to greater injury.
Studies related to effects of drug use in sport could include, but are not limited to:
• Liv et al. (2008) on unclear results of use of human growth hormone on athletic performance
• McGrath and Cowan (2008) on drug use in sport including effect on performance and detrimental effects
• Tokish et al. (2004) on performance and side effects of performance enhancing drugs
• Pope and Katz (1988) on steroid use and increased mood disorders
• Yates et al. (1992) on steroid use and increased aggression
• Brower et al. (1991) on steroid use leading to addiction.
Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
• gender considerations
• cultural variations
• contrary and/or supporting findings or explanations
• application of research
• ethical issues.
Candidates may discuss two effects of drug use in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of effects of drug use in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
If a candidate discusses only one effect of drug use in sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
Discuss athlete response to chronic injury.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of athlete response to chronic injury.
Research with regard to chronic injury may include, but is not limited to:
• Kubler-Ross’s model of rehabilitation (and related research such as Hardy and Crace, 1990; Brewer, 1994)
• coping in a “culture of risk” (for example, Nixon, 1992)
• identity loss in response to injury (for example, Petipas and Danish, 1995)
• avoidance coping (for example, Shuer et al., 1997)
• information-processing model of injury response (for example, Udry et al., 1997)
• cognitive appraisal model and coping (for example, Wiese-Bjornstall, 1998)
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural considerations
• gender considerations
• ethical considerations of continued performance after injury
• contrary and/or supporting findings or explanations
• methodological considerations.
If a candidate addresses only the issue of chronic injury without linking it to athlete response, the answer should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the psychosocial consequences of female infertility and treatment in a country in the Middle East.
\n
In some countries, giving birth is often the only way for married women to enhance their status in the community. Women are often blamed for infertility, regardless of the actual cause, leading to stress.
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial consequences for females being treated for infertility in a country in the Middle East. Since staff in this fertility centre did not address psychological or social issues related to infertility, the female researcher wanted to investigate which psychosocial needs could be addressed in the future.
\nThe study took place in a public fertility centre in a country in the Middle East. A purposive sample of 25 women aged between 21 and 48 years was selected for the study. An ethics committee approved the study. All women signed consent forms after first being informed about the aim of the study and their ethical rights.
\nThe researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:
\n• Social: Concerns that the husband would find another wife, worries that people might find out about the infertility, or worries about being able to pay for continued treatment.
\n• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.
\nThe researcher asked participants to confirm the accuracy of their statements. Additionally, the researcher asked other researchers to verify the results. As a control, several infertile women who did not participate in the study agreed to compare the findings of the study with their own experiences.
\nThe conclusion was that because of the social pressure in the Middle East for married women to give birth, infertility and its treatment can be a major source of psychological suffering. As a result of the findings the researcher suggested that having professionally trained social workers could be a valuable addition to medical interventions in the clinics in order to help the women manage the psychosocial consequences of infertility and its treatment.
\nDiscuss the use of semi-structured interviews in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors relevant for the use of semi-structured interviews in the research study in the stimulus material. Conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate knowledge of semi-structured interviews applied to the stimulus material.
Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
Semi-structured interviews normally use a combination of closed and open-ended questions and the interview is often more informal and conversational in nature.
Reasons for choosing the semi-structured interview in this study could include, but are not limited to:
• The topic of infertility is a socially and personally sensitive topic so the flexibility of the semi-structured interview allows participants to talk more freely and express their true feelings. Using open-ended questions makes it possible for respondents to give an account of their personal experiences with infertility from their own perspective. This seems a major advantage in this study because of the sensitive topic of female infertility in a society where women's worth is related to bearing children. The fact that the interviewer was a woman might have increased respondents’ feelings of being able to say exactly what they wanted, providing authentic responses.
• The semi-structured interview allows researchers to get specific answers on closed questions related to the study as well as the opportunity to obtain richer data in the open-ended questions compared to a narrative interview where some data might be less useful because participants’ responses may not be entirely focused on the research question.
• If the researchers had used a structured interview with closed questions they would perhaps not be able to gain the same insight into the true worries and emotional problems of the women suffering from infertility.
• It could be difficult to conduct a focus group interview with other women in the same situation if there is social stigma around the problem of infertility. The respondents may not have revealed all their worries and concerns.
Candidates may also refer to the disadvantages of semi-structured interviews, for example, that analysis of data is extremely time-consuming. Since the researchers have chosen to use the semi-structured interview in spite of this, it could be because of the possibility to obtain richer data.
Responses may refer to other research methods as part of the discussion, but the focus of the response should be on the use of semi-structured interviews in this study.
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the psychosocial consequences of female infertility and treatment in a country in the Middle East.
\n
In some countries, giving birth is often the only way for married women to enhance their status in the community. Women are often blamed for infertility, regardless of the actual cause, leading to stress.
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial consequences for females being treated for infertility in a country in the Middle East. Since staff in this fertility centre did not address psychological or social issues related to infertility, the female researcher wanted to investigate which psychosocial needs could be addressed in the future.
\nThe study took place in a public fertility centre in a country in the Middle East. A purposive sample of 25 women aged between 21 and 48 years was selected for the study. An ethics committee approved the study. All women signed consent forms after first being informed about the aim of the study and their ethical rights.
\nThe researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:
\n• Social: Concerns that the husband would find another wife, worries that people might find out about the infertility, or worries about being able to pay for continued treatment.
\n• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.
\nThe researcher asked participants to confirm the accuracy of their statements. Additionally, the researcher asked other researchers to verify the results. As a control, several infertile women who did not participate in the study agreed to compare the findings of the study with their own experiences.
\nThe conclusion was that because of the social pressure in the Middle East for married women to give birth, infertility and its treatment can be a major source of psychological suffering. As a result of the findings the researcher suggested that having professionally trained social workers could be a valuable addition to medical interventions in the clinics in order to help the women manage the psychosocial consequences of infertility and its treatment.
\nDescribe how the researcher in this study could use inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how inductive content analysis could be applied to the interview transcripts in the study.
Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
In the context of this study, candidates should describe characteristics or features of the procedure of inductive content analysis and apply that to the study mentioned in the stimulus material. Relevant parts of the procedure of inductive content analysis in this study could be, but are not limited to:
• Analysis of the transcripts of the interview to identify possible categories and themes that relate to how the women in the study experience their infertility and the treatment.
• Following a systematic analysis of the transcript for emerging themes (for example, “worries that other people might discover the infertility” or “feelings of guilt” and “fear of taking a pregnancy test”) the researcher could try to connect emerging themes in meaningful ways to establish possible hierarchies of themes.
• The researcher reads and rereads the transcript many times until the data is saturated and no more categories/themes can be found.
• Constructing a summary table of the two higher-order themes mentioned in the stimulus material. (social and psychological)
• Connecting the subordinate themes with relevant quotations from women in the study to support the choice of each theme.
• The final task is to make interpretations based on the analysis and check these, for example, by asking other researchers and the participants involved to ensure that the interpretation truly reflects the views of the participants. The credibility check is the final step in the process.
Responses that do not describe how inductive content analysis could be used in this study but merely refer to the themes mentioned in the stimulus material should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the psychosocial consequences of female infertility and treatment in a country in the Middle East.
\n
In some countries, giving birth is often the only way for married women to enhance their status in the community. Women are often blamed for infertility, regardless of the actual cause, leading to stress.
The aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial consequences for females being treated for infertility in a country in the Middle East. Since staff in this fertility centre did not address psychological or social issues related to infertility, the female researcher wanted to investigate which psychosocial needs could be addressed in the future.
\nThe study took place in a public fertility centre in a country in the Middle East. A purposive sample of 25 women aged between 21 and 48 years was selected for the study. An ethics committee approved the study. All women signed consent forms after first being informed about the aim of the study and their ethical rights.
\nThe researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:
\n• Social: Concerns that the husband would find another wife, worries that people might find out about the infertility, or worries about being able to pay for continued treatment.
\n• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.
\nThe researcher asked participants to confirm the accuracy of their statements. Additionally, the researcher asked other researchers to verify the results. As a control, several infertile women who did not participate in the study agreed to compare the findings of the study with their own experiences.
\nThe conclusion was that because of the social pressure in the Middle East for married women to give birth, infertility and its treatment can be a major source of psychological suffering. As a result of the findings the researcher suggested that having professionally trained social workers could be a valuable addition to medical interventions in the clinics in order to help the women manage the psychosocial consequences of infertility and its treatment.
\nExplain the importance of establishing credibility in qualitative research and how this was done in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\n
The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account of the importance of credibility in qualitative research and how this was dealt with in the study in the stimulus material and give reasons by referring to details of the study.
The overall aim in qualitative research is to present a true picture of the participants' own subjective world as they see it, that is, to give a credible or trustworthy description. Credibility in qualitative research is based on an evaluation of whether or not research findings represent a “credible” interpretation of the data drawn from participants' original data. In this study, a credible/trustworthy account of experiencing infertility and its treatment could be a first step towards establishing help to meet the psychosocial needs of these women who experience the stigma of infertility. This could be seen as the first important step to try to find means to help the affected women in a culture that tends to see women first and foremost as mothers.
Explanations related to establishing credibility in this study could include but are not limited to:
• This study used researcher triangulation as other researchers were asked to verify the results. This means that one or more other researchers could check data collection, analysis and interpretation to prevent various sorts of bias.
• The researcher asked participants to verify the results when she had finished analysis (credibility check).
• The data were also made available to several infertile women who did not participate in the study, asking them to compare the results with their own experiences.
Candidates may suggest other approaches to establish credibility (for example, method or data triangulation or reflexivity) and this is acceptable so long as the focus of the response is on how these other approaches would establish credibility in this qualitative study.
Responses that describe how credibility can be established in qualitative research but do not refer to specific examples from the study should be awarded a maximum of [5].
Biological level of analysis
\nDescribe one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.
\nThe ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
• obtaining informed consent
• avoiding harm or suffering of participants
• the use of animals as subjects
• the use of deception
• maintaining anonymity
• the right to withdraw
• the need for debriefing.
The focus of the response should be on the ethical consideration and not on the description of a study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration, credit should only be given to the first consideration. Candidates may be awarded marks if describing more than one ethical consideration, as long as the additional consideration(s) are used to clarify the description of the first — for example, explaining deception as part of a description of informed consent.
\nIf a candidate describes an appropriate study, but there is no link to an ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes an ethical consideration but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nCognitive level of analysis
\nWith reference to one study, describe how one particular research method is used at the cognitive level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one particular research method is used in one study at the cognitive level of analysis.
\nDescription of how the method is used might refer to key features of the method as well as how the method was used in one study. For example, experimental studies may identify the sampling and allocation procedures, the independent and dependent variables, and/or the way in which extraneous variables were controlled.
\nIf a candidate describes one research method and one study but does not explicitly link the study to how the research method is used, up to a maximum of [6] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate describes one appropriate study without reference to one research method, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate addresses how one research method is used but does not refer to one appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate describes more than one research method, credit should be given only to the first description.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\n\n
Sociocultural level of analysis
\nWith reference to one study, describe one error in attribution.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one error in attribution with reference to one study.
\nAppropriate attribution errors may include but are not limited to:
• fundamental attribution error (Ross et al. (1977); Jones and Harris (1967))
• defensive attribution bias (Walster (1966); Brickman et al. (1975))
• actor–observer bias (Storms (1973); Nisbett et al. (1973))
• illusory correlation (Hamilton and Gifford (1974))
• self-serving bias (Johnson et al. (1964); Lau and Russel (1980))
• modesty bias (Fahr, Dobbins and Cheng (1991); Kashima and Triandis (1986))
If a candidate describes an appropriate study without describing one error in attribution, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes one error in attribution without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one error in attribution, credit should be given only to the first error in attribution described. Candidates may be awarded marks for describing more than one type of error in attribution, as long as the additional errors are used to clarify the description of the first.
\nExamine one evolutionary explanation of behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider one evolutionary explanation of behaviour in a way that uncovers the assumptions of evolutionary theory related to behaviour.
\nEvolutionary theory is based on assumptions such as, but not limited to, the following:
• the basic principles of natural selection (adaptation)
• human behaviours may be inherited
• the mechanism of sexual selection.
Candidates may address one or more assumptions in responding to this question.
\nBehaviours that may be addressed include, but are not limited to:
• human mating behaviours (Buss, 1990)
• emotional behaviour (for example, disgust, Fessler, 2006; universality of emotional expressions, Ekman and Friesen, 1971)
• dysfunctional behaviour (for example, depression, Andrews and Thompson, 2009; phobias, Seligman, 1971)
• altruism (Dawkins, 1976).
Research that refers only to genetics without a clear link to one evolutionary explanation of behaviour should not receive credit.
\nIn order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:
• underlying assumptions
• evidence in support of the explanation
• strengths or limitations of the explanation
• contrary explanations of behaviour.
Candidates may address one behaviour in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of behaviours in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss the reliability of one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to give a considered and balanced review of the reliability of one cognitive process. Cognitive processes may include: memory, perception, or decision-making.
\nResponses may include, but are not limited to:
• that human memory is reconstructive and remembering is not simply retrieving a fully encoded event (Loftus and Palmer, 1974; Bartlett, 1932)
• that human memory may be reliable (Yuille and Cutshall, 1986; Brown and Kulik, 1977)
• the influence of emotion on memory (Brown and Kulik, 1977)
• the impact of environmental stimuli on perception (carpentered world hypothesis)
• the role of heuristics in decision-making may lead to errors in judgement (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974).
Discussion of the reliability of the cognitive process may include, but is not limited to:
• degree of empirical support
• contrary findings or explanations
• methodological and/or cultural considerations
• application to real life, for example, eye witness testimony.
Whichever cognitive process is selected, the focus of the response should be on a discussion of its reliability.
\nIf the reliability of more than one cognitive process is discussed, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process.
\n\n
Discuss social identity theory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of social identity theory.
\nResponses should present, with reference to relevant studies, the key concepts of the social identity theory such as:
• social categorization (ingroup/outgroup)
• social identification
• social comparison
• positive distinctiveness.
Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:
• Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities
• Sherif et al.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)
• Cialdini et al.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)
• Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)
• Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• the effectiveness of the theory in explaining social identity and inter-group behaviour
• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research
• methodological, cultural and gender considerations
• contrary findings or explanations
• applications of the theory.
\n
Biological level of analysis
\nDescribe one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.
\nThe ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
• obtaining informed consent
• avoiding harm or suffering of participants
• the use of animals as subjects
• the use of deception
• maintaining anonymity
• the right to withdraw
• the need for debriefing.
The focus of the response should be on the ethical consideration and not on the description of a study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration, credit should only be given to the first consideration. Candidates may be awarded marks if describing more than one ethical consideration, as long as the additional consideration(s) are used to clarify the description of the first — for example, explaining deception as part of a description of informed consent.
\nIf a candidate describes an appropriate study, but there is no link to an ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes an ethical consideration but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nCognitive level of analysis
\nDescribe how one social or cultural factor affects one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one social or cultural factor affects one cognitive process.
\nAs the concepts of social and cultural factors are arguably very much related, a distinction is not necessary in the response.
\nCognitive processes may include but are not limited to:
• memory
• perception
• attention
• language
• decision-making.
Appropriate factors include, but are not limited to:
• the impact of culture on schemas and memory (Bartlett, 1932)
• the effect of poverty on attention, working memory and perception
• the effects of social identity on the formation of flashbulb memories
• the role of schooling in memory strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974)
• the impact of environmental stimuli on perception (carpentered world hypothesis)
• the role of short-term and long-term orientation on decision-making (Chen, 2005).
Additional factors may include institutionalization, deprivation and stereotypes/stereotype threat.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one social or cultural factor, credit should be given only to the first factor.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first process.
\nIf a candidate describes a social or cultural factor making no explicit link to a cognitive process, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nSociocultural level of analysis
\nWith reference to one study, describe one error in attribution.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one error in attribution with reference to one study.
\nAppropriate attribution errors may include but are not limited to:
• fundamental attribution error (Ross et al. (1977); Jones and Harris (1967))
• defensive attribution bias (Walster (1966); Brickman et al. (1975))
• actor–observer bias (Storms (1973); Nisbett et al. (1973))
• illusory correlation (Hamilton and Gifford (1974))
• self-serving bias (Johnson et al. (1964); Lau and Russel (1980))
• modesty bias (Fahr, Dobbins and Cheng (1991); Kashima and Triandis (1986))
If a candidate describes an appropriate study without describing one error in attribution, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes one error in attribution without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one error in attribution, credit should be given only to the first error in attribution described. Candidates may be awarded marks for describing more than one type of error in attribution, as long as the additional errors are used to clarify the description of the first.
\n\n
To what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of genetic inheritance on behaviour.
\nIn responding, a candidate may choose a single behaviour, or they may choose a number of behaviours. The term “behaviour” may be considered broadly and could include schizophrenia, depression, obesity, intelligence, aggression and sexual orientation.
\nCandidates may use examples of inheritance from family, twin and adoption studies that look at concordance rates, or they may choose to look at studies of specific genes. Both approaches are equally acceptable. Candidates may also choose to address gene expression and gene x environment interactions.
\nIt may be appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or cognitive factors in order to address the command term “to what extent”. It would also be appropriate to look at the strengths and limitations of genetic evidence.
\nExamples of relevant studies include, but are not limited to:
• Heston’s (1966), Gottesman’s (1991) and Kety et al.’s (1975) studies examining the role of genetic inheritance in schizophrenia
• Kendler et al. (2006), Caspi et al. (2003) and Nurnberger and Gershon (1982) on the role of genetic inheritance in depression
• Garn et al. (1981) and Stunkard et al. (1990) on the role of genetic inheritance in obesity
• Bouchard et al. (1990), Scarr and Weinberg (1977), and Plomin and Petrill (1977) on the role of genetic inheritance in intelligence.
If a candidate makes reference to research from evolutionary psychology, the focus of the response must be on how genetic inheritance may influence the behaviour.
\nDiscuss one theory of how emotion may affect one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one theory demonstrating the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.
\nResponses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion, such as attention, perception, memory or decision-making.
\nExamples of theories include, but are not limited to:
• Brown and Kulik’s flashbulb memory theory
• Bower’s theory of state-dependent cues
• DaMasio’s Somatic Marker Hypothesis
Discussion of the selected theory includes, but is not limited to:
• degree of empirical support
• methodological considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• contrary findings or explanations
• validity of the concepts
• application and/or usefulness of the empirical findings.
If a candidate discusses more than one theory, credit should be given only to the first discussion, unless the other theory or theories are clearly used to evaluate the main theory; for example, used to illustrate the strengths and/or limitations of the main theory.
\n\n
Discuss the use of two compliance techniques.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two compliance techniques. Although the response must address two techniques the discussion does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nCompliance techniques that are addressed may include, but are not limited to:
• reciprocity (Lynne & McCall,1998; Tiger & Fox, 1989)
• foot-in-the-door (Petrova, 2007; Sherman, 1980; Freedman & Fraser, 1966)
• door-in-the-face (Gueguen & Meineri, 2011; Cialdini, 1975)
• low-balling (Burger & Cornelius, 2003; Palak, 1980).
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• efficacy of the technique
• levels of compliance affected by factors such as liking, authority, etc
• the role of cognitive dissonance
• the need for social acceptance
• the role of goal gradients
• methodological and ethical considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• contrary findings or explanations.
If a candidate discusses more than two compliance techniques, credit should be given only to the first two compliance techniques.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one compliance technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
\n
Abnormal psychology
\nDiscuss concepts of normality and abnormality.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes various concepts of normality and abnormality.
\nConcepts of normality and abnormality may include, but are not limited to:
• the mental health criterion/model
• the statistical criterion/model
• abnormality as mental illness (medical model)
• the psychoanalytic explanation of the concept of abnormality
• the cognitive explanation of the concept of abnormality
• deviation from social and cultural norms.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• cross-cultural issues
• gender biases
• supporting or contradicting evidence
• the issue of labelling
• changing norms on perceptions of normality (for example, changing views on homosexuality or political dissent)
• difficulties in defining normality/abnormality
• difficulties in diagnosing normality/abnormality.
Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:
• Rosenhan and Seligman (1984) – seven criteria of abnormality
• Jahoda (1958) – six characteristics of mental health
• Szasz (1962) – mental disorders as “problems in living”
• Bolton (1999) – cultural issues in overdiagnosis.
Although studies illustrating difficulty in diagnosis (eg Rosenhan) may be marginally relevant to the question, the response must be focused on the broader issue of normality versus abnormality in order to be awarded the full range of marks.
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of explanations of normality and abnormality in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of explanations of normality and abnormality in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nAbnormal psychology
\nDiscuss the use of one or more examples of an eclectic approach to treatment.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more examples of an eclectic approach to treatment.
\nAn eclectic approach to treatment refers to instances where the therapist selects treatments and strategies from a variety of current approaches. Responses may refer to an eclectic treatment in general or an eclectic treatment for specific disorders. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nMany examples of eclectic approaches to treatment are available, for example:
• Sharp et al.‘s (1999) study of drug therapy combined with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)
• Pampallona’s (2004) analysis of the relative effectiveness of drug therapy versus combined treatment
• Elkin et al.’s (1989) study of the relative effectiveness of interpersonal therapy (IPT), CBT, drugs and placebo
• McDermut et al.’s (2001) study of group therapy versus CBT.
Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
• strengths of each separate approach are combined so that potential limitations of a specific approach are decreased
• the overall treatment is tailored to the specific needs of the client
• it provides flexibility in treatment (for example, many patients suffer from several disorders at the same time)
• overall efficacy (lower relapse rates)
• treatment can be complex for one clinician to manage
• there are very few empirical studies on long-term effectiveness and more research is needed
• methodological, cultural and ethical considerations
• comparing the effectiveness of an eclectic approach to treatment to a singular approach.
Candidates may discuss one example of an eclectic approach to treatment in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or a greater number of examples of an eclectic approach to treatment in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate compares and evaluates two separate treatment methods without addressing the eclectic approach then the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
Abnormal psychology
\nExplain, with reference to psychological research, two etiologies of one anxiety, affective or eating disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including causes, of two etiologies of one disorder. The two etiologies explained could be from different levels of analysis or the same level of analysis. Although the question asks for two etiologies, the response does not need to be evenly balanced.
\nAnxiety disorders may include, but are not limited to: phobias, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) or OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder). Eating disorders may include, but are not limited to: anorexia, bulimia or binge eating disorders. Affective disorders may include, but are not limited to: major depression, bipolar disorder or seasonal affective disorder (SAD).
\nExamples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking could include, but are not limited to:
• analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations related to the studies
• application of empirical support in relation to the causes of the disorder
• using evidence from studies that support or disconfirm the explanation/etiology of one disorder
• analysis of the interaction between biological, cognitive and cultural factors
• addressing the issue of universality versus cultural differences
• questioning the direction of cause and effect.
If a candidate explains the etiology of a disorder which is neither an anxiety, affective nor eating disorder (for example, schizophrenia, or ADHD) then the response should be awarded [0] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate approaches this question without referring to a specific disorder, then the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate explains more than two etiologies, credit should be given only to the first two explanations. However, in some cases, candidates may use other etiologies in order to demonstrate critical thinking relevant to the two main etiologies addressed in the response. This approach is acceptable and should be awarded marks.
\nIf a candidate explains etiologies of more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the first disorder.
\nIf a candidate explains only one etiology of a disorder, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
Developmental psychology
\nExamine potential effects of deprivation and/or trauma in childhood on later development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider the relationships between deprivation and/or trauma in childhood and later development. Candidates may address deprivation and/or trauma experiences but they do not have to specifically identify them as deprivation or trauma situations.
\nResearch may include, but is not limited to:
• Rutter et al.’s (2001) and Rutter’s (1981) studies on the consequences of deprivation
• case study of Genie
• Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis
• Cockett and Tripp’s (1994) study on long-term attachment deprivation effects
• Cyrulnik’s theory of resilience
• Koluchova’s case study showing the possibility to reverse the effects of deprivation
• Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) theory on the positive aspects emerging from the struggle with trauma.
In order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:
• research explaining how resilience and protective factors reduce the impact of deprivation or trauma in childhood
• biological, cognitive or sociocultural factors in relation to potential effects of deprivation or trauma in childhood on later development
• traditional deterministic theories of deprivation
• research showing that deprivation or trauma may lead to positive growth
• short-term versus long-term effects of deprivation or trauma
• methodological and ethical considerations.
Candidates may make reference to animal studies as part of their response, and credit should be awarded for this as long as they relate the findings to human development.
\nCandidates may examine a small number of potential effects of deprivation/trauma in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of potential effects of deprivation/trauma in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\n\n
Developmental psychology
\nEvaluate one or more examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) into adolescence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more theories or studies into adolescence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
• Erikson’s identity theory
• Coleman’s focal theory
• Baethge’s cultural theory
• Lewin’s field theory.
Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Marcia’s studies on the different types of identity status
• Mead’s anthropological studies
• Rutter et al.’s studies on the relationships between adolescents and their parents
• Steinberg’s studies on parent–adolescent conflicts
• Condon’s (1987) study challenging the cross-cultural validity of Erikson’s theory
• Ferron’s (1997) cross-cultural study on body image in adolescence.
• studies related to teenage brain development.
Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:
• appropriateness of concepts in explaining adolescence
• appropriateness of explanation of individual differences
• cultural and gender considerations
• methodological considerations
• supporting and contradicting evidence
• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research
• the applications of the research
• relevance of stage versus continuous development.
If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nTheories such as those advanced by Piaget and Vygotsky may be presented for discussion. However, the focus must be on the period of adolescence in order to be awarded the full range of marks.
\n\n
Developmental psychology
\nTo what extent does attachment in childhood play a role in the formation of relationships later in life?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that attachment in childhood has on relationships later in life.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address the fact that there is no clear evidence of direct causality between attachment in childhood and formation of relationships later in life in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
• Pratt and Norris (1994) – positive correlation between early attachment relationships and reports of current social relationships
• Hazan and Shaver (1987) – similarities between romantic love as experienced by adults and the characteristics of attachment
• Rossi and Rossi (1990) – people who grew up in cohesive families tended to establish positive relationships with their own partners
• Sternberg and Beall (1991) – many adults find that their relationships vary: with one partner, they experience an insecure bond, but with the next a secure one
• Bowlby’s research on how maternal deprivation can affect an individual later in life.
Responses referring to research with animals, such as Harlow’s studies with rhesus monkeys, are relevant but must be linked to attachment in humans. Responses that do not explicitly make any link to human behaviour should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nResponses that focus only on descriptions of research on attachment in childhood (such as Ainsworth) with no link to the formation of relationships later in life should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
Health psychology
\nDiscuss physiological and/or social aspects of stress.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of physiological and/or social aspects of stress.
\nCandidates can use research that deals with either or both the physiological and social aspects of stress.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Kiecolt-Glaser et al.’s (1984) study on how exam stress influences the immune system
• Steptoe and Marmot’s (2003) Whitehall study on the relationship between workplace stress and the risk of heart disease
• Sapolsky (2005) on the influence of social hierarchy on primate health
• Fernald and Gunnar’s (2008) or Evans and Kim’s (2007) studies on the relationship between poverty and stress
• Taylor et al.’s (2000) study on gender differences in stress
• O’Driscoll and Cooper’s (1994) study on coping with work-related stress.
Discussion may include but is not limited to:
• cultural and gender considerations
• conditions under which stress may be observed and/or measured
• methodological concerns in measuring aspects of stress
• risk factors associated with socio-economic status.
Responses may discuss either physiological or social aspects of stress or may discuss both aspects of stress. Either approach is equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may address a smaller number of physiological and/or social aspects of stress in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of physiological and/or social aspects of stress in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nResponses referring to research with animals, such as Callhoun’s study of the effects of crowding on rats, are relevant but must be linked to human behaviour.
\nHealth psychology
\nExamine one or more models and/or theories of health promotion.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider one or more models/theories in a way that uncovers the assumptions of the models/theories, and relationships between the models/theories and health promotion.
\nModels/theories may include, but are not limited to:
• the health belief model (HBM)
• the stages of change model
• any of the various public health promotions such as the VERB (2002–2006), TRUTH (1998–1999), tips from former smokers (2012), ACT against AIDS (2011), HEART campaign (Zambia 1990s–2000).
Examination of the chosen models and/or theories may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural or gender considerations
• ethical considerations
• application of the empirical findings
• competing theories or studies
• the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of the health promotion with regard to models/theories.
Studies may be used to illustrate or provide evidence for specific models and/or theories of health promotion, but the focus of the response must be on addressing the actual model and/or theory of health promotion in order to be awarded the full range of marks.
\n\n
Health psychology
\nTo what extent do biological factors influence health-related behaviour?
Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence of biological factors on health-related behaviour.
\nStress, obesity, substance abuse, and other health-related behaviours are equally acceptable for answers to the question. Candidates may approach health-related behaviour as a whole or use specific examples of health-related behaviour. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nBiological factors may include, but are not limited to:
• evolutionary explanations
• genetic predisposition
• the biological effects of drug treatment for addictive behaviour
• the neurobiology of food addiction (for example, Volkow et al., 2002).
Each factor that is identified should be connected to health-related behaviour. Where this connection is not made, no marks should be awarded for the mere listing or description of biological factors.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or cognitive factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may address 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.
\n\n
Psychology of human relationships
\nDiscuss one or more social and/or cultural origins of attraction.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more social/cultural explanations for the origin of attraction.
\nSocial/cultural origins of attraction may include, but are not limited to:
• Proximity factor – proximity increases chances for interaction which in turn increases familiarity. Mere exposure effect is enough to increase liking (Zajonc, 1968)
• Cultural factors play a role in inducing attraction (for example, Buss et al., 1990) - values of chastity, youth, good financial prospects are differently rated in different parts of the world.
• Reciprocity - people tend to like others who reciprocate their liking
• Balance theory - emphasizes people’s desire to maintain a consistent state, also predicts the emergence of reciprocity, at least for people who are more like themselves
• Reward theory – we are often more inclined to spend time with people who make us feel good or offer some kind of social status or benefits.
• Social exchange theory – we unconsciously weigh the rewards and costs of being in a relationship. If a relationship is to last it should be profitable for both partners (Nye, 1979)
• Similarity (for example social class, cultural background, religion, ethnicity).
Discussion of social/cultural explanations of attraction may include, but is not limited to:
• methodological considerations
• gender considerations
• supporting or contradictory empirical evidence
• alternative explanations of attraction, such as biological and/or cognitive.
Candidates may address one or a small number of social/cultural origins of attraction in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of social/cultural origins of attraction in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nPsychology of human relationships
\nEvaluate two examples of research (theories and/or studies) investigating the role of communication in maintaining relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of two examples of research investigating the role of communication in maintaining relationships by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the research. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nExamples of research may include, but are not limited to:
• gender or cultural differences in communication patterns (for example, Tannen, 1990)
• the role of attribution in relationships (for example, Bradbury and Fincham, 1992)
• the value of disclosure (for example, social penetration theory)
• the role of communication of emotions in maintaining relationships (for example, Gottman and Levenson, 1986)
• studies on marital satisfaction (for example, Fincham, 2004).
Evaluation of the research may include, but is not limited to:
• methodological considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• the accuracy and clarity of the concepts
• supporting and/or contradictory evidence
• alternative explanations
• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research
• the applications of the empirical findings.
If a candidate evaluates more than two examples of research, credit should be given only to the first two examples of research. However, candidates may discuss other theories/studies and be awarded marks for this as long as these theories/studies are clearly used to evaluate the two main examples of research addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate evaluates only one theory/study, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\nPsychology of human relationships
\nTo what extent do sociocultural factors influence human relationships?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors that affect human relationships.
\nCandidates may address one or all areas of the option: social responsibility, interpersonal relationships and/or violence.
\nFactors which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:
• gender and cultural norms (for example, the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships, violence, or perception of attractiveness)
• proximity
• modelling
• social identity
• similarity
• familiarity.
It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or cognitive factors in order to address the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may consider a small number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nStudies may be used to illustrate or to provide evidence for factors influencing human relationships, but the focus of the response must be on addressing the actual sociocultural factors which influence human relationships in order to be awarded the full range of marks.
\nSport psychology
\nEvaluate two or more techniques for skill development used in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of two or more techniques used for skill development in sport by weighing up the strengths and limitations of each technique. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nTechniques for skill development may include, but are not limited to:
• massed practice vs. distributed practice (e.g. repetition), for example Wickelgren (1981); Fitts and Posner (1967); Singer (1965)
• mental imagery research, for example Issac (1992); Baroga (1973); Rushall (1970)
• research on self-talk, for example Araki et al. (2006); Landin and Herbert (1999); Martin et al. (1995).
Evaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural or gender considerations
• empirical findings
• conditions under which the findings may be applied
• comparison to other techniques
• methodological considerations
• the effectiveness of the techniques.
Candidates may evaluate two techniques in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of techniques to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate only evaluates one technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nSport psychology
\nTo what extent does the role of coaches influence individual and/or team behaviour in sport?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of the coach’s role in affecting individual and/or team behaviour in sport.
\nCoaches can have a positive or negative effect on the athletes they coach.
\nCandidates may consider topics such as, but not limited to:
• the role of the coach with regard to the motivation of the athlete
• self-efficacy
• goal-setting
• the role of feedback in improving performance
• the role of coaches in team cohesion
• the role of coaches’ expectations in the performance of athletes.
Candidates may discuss the difficulties of assessing the influence of coaches. This approach could include discussion of the difficulty in isolating variables, the problem of generalizability (transference) or the general subjectivity of this type of research.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address the role of other factors related to individual and/or team behaviour in sport such as personality characteristics, financial motivations, peer influences, team cohesion, etc. in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
• Garcia-Bengoechea (2003) on peers’ versus coaches’ effect on athlete motivation
• Jowett and Cockerill (2003) on coaches’ characteristics and successful Olympic swimmers
• Duda and Pensgaard (2002) on improving intrinsic motivation
• Chase et al. (1997) on coaches’ sense of self-efficacy and team performance
• Slavin (1965) on facilitating a community of cooperative learners
• Horn and Lox (1993) on the role of coaches’ expectations on athlete performance
• Alfermann et al. (2005) on coaches’ influence on skill development in athletes.
Sport psychology
\nDiscuss one or more models/theories of burnout in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more models/theories of burnout in sport. Candidates may discuss models/theories related to causes of burnout in sport and/or prevention of burnout in sport.
\nModels/theories on burnout include, but are not limited to:
• Smith’s (1986) cognitive affective model
• Meichenbaum’s (1985) stress inoculation theory (SIT)
• Raedeke’s (2002) study of role conflict and other factors of burnout
• Maslasch and Jackson’s (1984) model of burnout.
If a response addresses models and/or theories of burnout that address behaviour in general without explicit reference to behaviour in sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.
\nExtreme sports are physical activities that are dangerous and may result in serious injury or even death. Researchers are interested in why people would be willing to participate in activities that are dangerous, although at this stage there is not yet much qualitative research in this area.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).
\nFive males and three females who practise sky diving or mountaineering were recruited for the study. An ethics committee approved the research and all participants signed informed consent before the study. They were also asked to choose another name, which would be used to refer to them in the final report.
\nA semi-structured interview was carried out with each participant. Each interview lasted an hour and took place in locations that each participant chose. The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim before conducting an inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:
• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits
• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport
• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants
• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind
• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”
• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.
The researchers concluded that the participants’ own explanations suggest that pushing one’s limits and striving for achievement are major motivational factors that outweigh the possible risks involved in taking part in extreme sports.
\nCarla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in
Journal of Health Psychology, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Explain two or more ethical considerations relevant to this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons, for the relevance of two or more ethical considerations to the study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nRelevant ethical considerations in this study could include, but are not limited to:
• Anonymity/confidentiality: An important ethical consideration in all research is to guarantee anonymity/confidentiality. The eight participants in this study were asked to come up with another name to use in the research report. This indicates that the researchers have ensured anonymity as the participants appear under a different name – and furthermore, a name that they have chosen themselves. Candidates may elaborate on this and say that due to the small number of participants and because very few people are involved in extreme sports it is possible that the participants may all know each other. It may therefore be difficult to achieve total anonymity but the researchers have done what they could to ensure that the identities of the participants were not revealed in the final report.
• Research ethics committee: According to the stimulus material an ethics committee approved the study. This is a standard procedure to ensure ethical standards are in line with ethical guidelines (eg American Psychological Association) in research involving human participants, for example ensuring that individuals receive sufficient information and that appropriate strategies are in place to protect participants from potential damaging effects of the research. It is also important that there is no conflict of interest between participants and the researcher. The interests of the participants always come first and it is obvious from the stimulus material that the researchers in this study took great care to ensure that the study was ethically sound.
• Informed consent: In the stimulus material, it is stated that all participants signed informed consent before the study began. This is an important ethical consideration that includes that participants are fully informed about the purpose of the study, benefits of the research, right to confidentiality and participants' rights, for example, that they can withdraw their data at any point. Such considerations may also be explained as separate ethical considerations by candidates and receive marks.
• The participants in this study were also invited to choose the location of the interview themselves so that they could feel comfortable and safe during the interview. Candidates may relate this to part of the informed consent or protection/ensuring the wellbeing of participants.
Candidates may refer to ethical considerations taken by the researcher in the study in the stimulus material and/or considerations that could have been taken. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may explain two ethical considerations in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of ethical considerations in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate explains only one ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [5].
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.
\nExtreme sports are physical activities that are dangerous and may result in serious injury or even death. Researchers are interested in why people would be willing to participate in activities that are dangerous, although at this stage there is not yet much qualitative research in this area.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).
\nFive males and three females who practise sky diving or mountaineering were recruited for the study. An ethics committee approved the research and all participants signed informed consent before the study. They were also asked to choose another name, which would be used to refer to them in the final report.
\nA semi-structured interview was carried out with each participant. Each interview lasted an hour and took place in locations that each participant chose. The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim before conducting an inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:
• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits
• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport
• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants
• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind
• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”
• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.
The researchers concluded that the participants’ own explanations suggest that pushing one’s limits and striving for achievement are major motivational factors that outweigh the possible risks involved in taking part in extreme sports.
\nCarla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in
Journal of Health Psychology, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Discuss the use of semi-structured interview in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors relevant to the use of a semi-structured interview in this research study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nSemi-structured interviews normally use a combination of closed and open-ended questions and the interview is often informal and conversational in nature with many open-ended questions. The semi-structured interview is based on an interview guide with a number of themes to explore. This is a checklist to encure standardization of interviews but there is flexibility in terms of order of questions and how to phrase them.
\nDiscussion related to reasons for choosing the semi-structured interview in this study could include, but is not limited to:
• Good reasons for choosing the flexibility of the semi-structured interview could be the personal and somewhat sensitive nature of the topic in this study. Using open-ended questions makes it possible for respondents to give a detailed account of their personal experiences and to reflect on their motives for participating in extreme sports, which would eventually provide richer data in relation to this rather unexplored topic.
• The interviewer can also ask participants to elaborate if more information is needed on topics brought up by the respondent. This seems a major advantage in this study where the purpose is to get an insight into the complex motives for engaging in a sport that is potentially deadly.
• The semi-structured interview allows researchers to not only use open-ended questions, which means that they get rich data, but also to get answers to specific questions, for example related to the specific version of extreme sport of each participant.
• If the researchers had used a structured interview with closed questions, they would probably not gain the same insight into the eight participants' ideas, perceptions and feelings about motivations to participate in extreme sports. There is still limited research on possible motivations for participating in extreme sports. The results of this study could serve as a platform for further research into the topic, using other methods.
• If the researchers have chosen not to use a focus group interview it is possibly because it is impossible to guarantee anonymity of participants, which was very important in this study. Another reason could be that the topic of this investigation is sensitive and with more participants present there is a risk that participants do not want to disclose what they really feel and this could compromise the purpose of this research.
• In the discussion of the use of semi-structured interviews candidates are likely to include particular strengths of the semi-structured interview and link them to this specific study. One example could be that the more informal and conversational nature of the semi-structured as well as the one-on-one encounter is more likely to have participants open up and reveal their subjective experiences of engaging in extreme sports. This contributes useful information to this research in a new area.
Candidates may (but do not have to) refer to the disadvantages of semi-structured interviews, for example, that analysis of data is extremely time-consuming or that there may only be limited space to explore themes that have not been planned beforehand. Since the researchers have chosen to use the semi-structured interview in spite of possible limitations, it could be because of the possibility to obtain rich data in a field that has only just begun to be studied by qualitative researchers.
\nResponses may refer to other research methods and be credited for this as long as the focus of the response is on semi-structured interviews.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.
\nExtreme sports are physical activities that are dangerous and may result in serious injury or even death. Researchers are interested in why people would be willing to participate in activities that are dangerous, although at this stage there is not yet much qualitative research in this area.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).
\nFive males and three females who practise sky diving or mountaineering were recruited for the study. An ethics committee approved the research and all participants signed informed consent before the study. They were also asked to choose another name, which would be used to refer to them in the final report.
\nA semi-structured interview was carried out with each participant. Each interview lasted an hour and took place in locations that each participant chose. The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim before conducting an inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:
• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits
• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport
• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants
• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind
• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”
• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.
The researchers concluded that the participants’ own explanations suggest that pushing one’s limits and striving for achievement are major motivational factors that outweigh the possible risks involved in taking part in extreme sports.
\nCarla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in
Journal of Health Psychology, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Describe how researchers in this study could use inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how inductive content analysis could be used on the interview transcripts in the study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nIn the context of this study, candidates should describe characteristics or features of the procedure of inductive content analysis on the transcripts. Relevant parts of the procedure of inductive content analysis in this study could include, but are not limited to:
• Reading and rereading the transcripts of the interview to identify possible categories and themes (coding the raw data) that relate to how the participants describe their motivation to participate in extreme sport.
• After coding of data the analysis may reveal emerging themes such as “to be in the present”; feelings of “achievement or mastery”; and accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience.
• The different themes should be connected with relevant quotations from the eight participants in the study to support the choice of each theme.
• After initial analysis the researcher could try to identify possible low-level as well as higher-level themes and connect them in meaningful ways to establish hierarchies of themes.
• Construction of a summary table of higher-order themes and illustrating with quotations, for example “the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits”; “striving for achievement and mastery of their sport” and lower-order themes, for example “experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or ‘adrenaline rush’” and also “accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports”.
• The analysis will continue until saturation of the data.
• The final task is to make interpretations based on the summary table in order to find a relationship between the different themes. This could lead to formulation of theory to include in the final report.
• Credibility checks can take place during the whole process of inductive content analysis, for example checking themes with other coders or researchers as well as participants to have them confirm the interpretation of data. Credibility checks could also include reflexivity, that is, the researcher controls for own biases.
Responses that identify themes mentioned in the stimulus material and only say that inductive content analysis is about finding themes in the transcripts but fail to describe specific elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].
\nResponses that merely quote themes mentioned in the stimulus material but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
\nResponses that merely state that inductive content analysis is concerned with finding themes in the transcripts but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
\nExplain how one principle that defines the biological level of analysis has been demonstrated in one example of research (theory or study).
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of how one theory or study clearly demonstrates a principle relevant to the biological level of analysis.
\nAcceptable principles may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses should focus on the link between the principle and the theory or study – for example, a specific example of what animal research teaches us about human behaviour.
\nIf a candidate explains more than one principle in relation to one or more theories or studies, credit should be given only to the first principle explained in the first theory or study used.
\nIf a relevant principle and research are described but the link is not explicitly explained, then apply the markbands up to a maximum of [6].
\nIf a candidate explains a relevant principle making no link to an example of research at the biological level of analysis, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate makes reference to a study or theory at the biological level of analysis but there is no relevant principle outlined, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.
\nWith reference to one study, describe how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process.
\nA specific biological factor must be clearly identified. Possible cognitive processes include, but are not limited to, memory, language acquisition, problem solving, and perception.
\nResearch studies may include but are not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on how the biological factor affects the cognitive process, not solely on describing the study.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nIf a candidate describes how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one biological factor, credit should be given only to the first biological factor.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process.
\nWith reference to one study, outline the role of situational and/or dispositional factors in explaining behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of how situational and/or dispositional factors may explain human behaviour.
\nAnswers may refer to attribution theory, self-serving bias, modesty bias or other relevant research to help outline the role of situational and dispositional factors. It would also be appropriate to refer to studies such as Milgram or Zimbardo in support of situational factors.
\nIf a candidate addresses the role of situational and/or dispositional factors in explaining behaviour without referring to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate makes reference to an appropriate study and outlines the role of situational and/or dispositional factors without making an explicit link between the factors and the study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [6].
\nIf a candidate describes an appropriate study, but does not refer to situational or dispositional factors, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [3].
\nDiscuss one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.
\nExamples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to the effects of:
\nExamples of studies include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one effect of the environment or one physiological process in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of effects of the environment or physiological processes in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations related to one or more research studies at the cognitive level of analysis.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one or more ethical considerations related to one or more research studies at the cognitive level of analysis.
\nEthical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of ethical considerations may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates that discuss the use of animals in research should use studies that are clearly cognitive and not studies that focus on the effects of biological factors on cognitive processes.
\nExamine two or more factors influencing conformity.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider how two or more factors influence conformity in a way that uncovers the assumptions and relationships between each of these factors and conformity.
\nAppropriate factors influencing conformity may include but are not limited to: culture, minority influence, group size, unanimity, confidence, self-esteem, intellectual competence and leadership ability. Candidates may refer to normative influence and informational influence as factors leading to conformity.
\nCandidates may refer to a number of studies that may include but are not limited to:
\nIn order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:
\nCandidates may examine two factors influencing conformity in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate examines only one factor influencing conformity, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf factors influencing obedience or compliance, rather than conformity, are discussed, no marks should be awarded for this discussion. Marks should only be awarded for a discussion of the Stanford Prison Study if the response focuses on relevant factors influencing conformity, for example referent informational influence.
\nTo what extent do cognitive factors influence abnormal behaviour?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of cognitive factors that affect abnormal behaviour.
\nCognitive factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the cognitive factors influencing abnormal behaviour. However, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other factors (such as biological factors and/or sociocultural factors) in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nThe term “abnormal behaviour” can be interpreted by candidates differently – some candidates may focus on the extent to which cognitive factors influence only one type of abnormal behaviour (for example, a specific disorder) or address the term in a general manner by offering several examples of how some cognitive factors relate to several disorders. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may consider a small number of cognitive factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of cognitive or sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nEvaluate one or more examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) related to approaches to treatment.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an evaluation of theories and/or studies related to approaches to treatment by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the selected theory or study. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the selected theory or study may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may evaluate one theory/study in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or a greater number of theories/studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nContrast the use of biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment of one disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment of one disorder. Critical thinking (synthesis/analysis) may also be demonstrated by referring to an eclectic approach that combines biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment of one disorder.
\nExpect a range of different approaches to treatment to be offered in response to the question. Individual treatments could include systematic desensitization, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or person-centred therapy. Biomedical approaches could include drug therapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or psychosurgery, for example. Responses should provide an accurate and well-organized description of both approaches to treatment.
\nContrasting points addressed may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses should be focused on biomedical and individual approaches to treatment of one specific disorder to demonstrate detailed knowledge and understanding relevant to the question.
\nIf a candidate contrasts the use of biomedical and individual approaches to treatment for more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the part of the response relevant for the first disorder.
\nIf a candidate contrasts the use of biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment with no explicit link to one specific disorder, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf the response contrasts group approaches to treatment to biomedical/individual approaches to treatment, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
To what extent do biological factors influence human development?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors that affect human development.
\nResponses may refer to biological factors including but not limited to:
\nIn order to respond to the command term, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to discuss:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the biological factors influencing human development. However, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other factors (such as cognitive factors and/or sociocultural factors) in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may address 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.
\nAnimal research may be used as long as a clear link is made to human development.
\nEvaluate one or more examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) relevant to the formation and development of gender roles.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of research related to the formation and development of gender roles by weighing up the strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include but is not limited to:
\nA candidate may evaluate one theory or study in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may evaluate a larger number of theories/studies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\n\n
Discuss the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.
\nRelevant content may provide an outline of the emergence of primary and secondary sexual characteristics then show how that affects identity formation during adolescence, such as:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses should focus on the link between physical changes and identity development. Physical changes have psychological ramifications that contribute to an adolescent’s sense of self.
\nIf a candidate only addresses development of identity or only addresses physical change in adolescence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [4] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
Examine one or more prevention strategies for substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and relationships between substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour and strategies designed to prevent this behaviour.
\nSubstance abuse and/or addictive behaviour may refer to addictions to tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, sex, gambling, or food, among others.
\nRelevant prevention strategies may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant campaigns/studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIn order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:
\nResponses may examine treatment of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour (for example, Alcoholics Anonymous, nicotine patches) and this approach should be awarded marks if the response indicates that this treatment will prevent further substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour. For example, in secondary prevention (such as for alcohol use disorder or nicotine addiction) in order to prevent relapse.
\nCandidates may address one or a small number of prevention strategies in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of prevention strategies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\n\n
Discuss one or more strategies for coping with stress.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more strategies used to cope with stress.
\nRelevant strategies (including models and techniques) may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may also address ineffective or unhealthy coping strategies, such as drug taking, alcohol abuse, smoking, overeating, or the use of defense mechanisms.
\nDiscussion of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one strategy in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may discuss a larger number of strategies in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\n\n
Discuss two or more factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.
\nIt is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between overeating and obesity.
\nFactors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
\n
Evaluate the effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of two strategies for reducing violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nA strategy is any plan of action or programme for reducing violence. It is appropriate for candidates to address models and theories related to strategies for reducing violence.
\nExamples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate focuses only on general issues related to violence and does not address any strategies for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate evaluates more than two strategies for reducing violence, credit should be given only to the first two discussions. However, candidates may address other strategies for reducing violence and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to evaluate one or both of the two main strategies addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate evaluates only one strategy for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.
\n\n
Analyse the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “analyse” requires candidates to bring out (emphasize) essential aspects of the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.
\nCandidates do not need to distinguish between the formation and maintenance of relationships, as the two are so closely linked.
\nCandidates may address different types of relationships, for example, romantic relationships, marriages, friendship, family relationships, workplace relationships.
\nStudies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:
\n\n
Discuss two theories explaining altruism in humans.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two theories of altruism in humans. Although two theories must be addressed, this does not have to be evenly balanced.
\nAnimal research may be used as long as a clear link is made to human behaviour.
\nTheories may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nExplanations of bystanderism, diffusion of responsibility and/or cost–benefit analysis should not be awarded marks.
\nIf a candidate discusses more than two theories, credit should be given only to the first two theories. However, candidates may discuss other theories/studies and be awarded marks for this as long as these theories/studies are clearly used to discuss one or both of the main theories addressed in the response.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one theory, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
\n
Discuss one or more theories relating arousal and/or anxiety to performance in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories relating arousal and/or anxiety to performance in sport.
\nIt is not necessary for candidates to distinguish between arousal and anxiety.
\nTheories include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion of the selected research may include but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses one or more theories relating arousal and/or anxiety to performance in general but not relevant for sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nCandidates may discuss one theory in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or a greater number of theories in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\n\n
Explain relationships between team cohesion and performance in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, for relationships between team cohesion and performance.
\nThe word “team” should be interpreted to include sports in which all team members participate at the same time (for example, football) or in which team members participate one at a time (for example, track and field).
\nStudies include, but are not limited to:
\nEvidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:
\nCandidates may explain a small number of relationships between team cohesion and performance to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of relationships to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThe question is specifically asking about relationships between team cohesion and performance in sport. Discussion of team cohesion and performance in general is not the focus of the question.
\nIf a candidate explains relationships between team cohesion and performance in general but not relevant for sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
\n
Examine two or more reasons for using drugs in sport.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “examine” requires candidates to consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and relationships of the issue of drug use in sport.
\nCandidates may address both legal (prescribed painkillers, for example) and illegal (anabolic steroids, for example) use of drugs in sport. A discussion of blood doping in sport is an appropriate topic for use in a response.
\nThe question is specifically asking about reasons for using drugs in sport. Discussion of addiction or drug abuse itself is not the focus of the question. In order to remain focused, candidates must direct their response toward drug use in sport.
\nReasons for using drugs in sport include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research includes, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss two reasons in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of reasons in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate discusses only one reason, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\nIf a candidate examines two or more reasons for using drugs in general but not relevant for sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.
\n\n
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the possible physical, social and psychological benefits of dog ownership for the elderly in the UK.
\nAs the number of elderly people is expected to rise in the near future, it is important to ensure that they stay healthy as they get older. One way in which this can be done is through exercise. According to the researchers of this study, dog ownership may be a good way of encouraging the elderly to walk and stay fit.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to investigate how elderly dog owners believe their physical and mental health is affected by having a dog. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 24 dog owners from popular dog-walking sites in the south of England. Seventy-five percent of the participants were female and the mean age was 60. They all signed informed consent before joining the study.
\nThe researchers conducted four focus group interviews, each with six different participants. The facilitator used an interview protocol with some prepared questions to encourage discussions. Examples of these questions are: “What does your dog mean to you?” and “What are you looking for in a walk?” Each interview lasted around 1.5 hours and did not end until participants agreed that all important topics had been discussed. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to prepare for inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:
\nThe researchers concluded that owning a dog may increase physical and psychological health for the elderly and therefore lead to them having a better quality of life. However, more research is needed, as this is a new research area.
\n[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,
and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]
Evaluate the purposive sampling technique used in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the sampling technique used in the study. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nPurposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique often used in qualitative research to serve a specific research aim. It is up to the researcher's judgment to decide what characteristics are important to meet the purpose of the study. In this study, the researcher chose participants who were similar on salient characteristics, that is, the target population was “elderly dog owners”.
\nStrengths of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:
\nLimitations of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may refer to other sampling methods but this should only be credited if it is done as part of their evaluation of the purposive sampling method used in this study.
\nResponses that refer to only strengths or only limitations of the purposive sampling method used in this study should be awarded up to a maximum of [5].
\nResponses that evaluate only a sampling method other than the purposive sampling method used in the study should be awarded [0].
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the possible physical, social and psychological benefits of dog ownership for the elderly in the UK.
\nAs the number of elderly people is expected to rise in the near future, it is important to ensure that they stay healthy as they get older. One way in which this can be done is through exercise. According to the researchers of this study, dog ownership may be a good way of encouraging the elderly to walk and stay fit.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to investigate how elderly dog owners believe their physical and mental health is affected by having a dog. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 24 dog owners from popular dog-walking sites in the south of England. Seventy-five percent of the participants were female and the mean age was 60. They all signed informed consent before joining the study.
\nThe researchers conducted four focus group interviews, each with six different participants. The facilitator used an interview protocol with some prepared questions to encourage discussions. Examples of these questions are: “What does your dog mean to you?” and “What are you looking for in a walk?” Each interview lasted around 1.5 hours and did not end until participants agreed that all important topics had been discussed. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to prepare for inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:
\nThe researchers concluded that owning a dog may increase physical and psychological health for the elderly and therefore lead to them having a better quality of life. However, more research is needed, as this is a new research area.
\n[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,
and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]
Describe how researchers in this study used inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how inductive content analysis was applied to the interview transcripts in the study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nCandidates should describe characteristics or features of the procedure of inductive content analysis on the transcript in the context of this study. Relevant parts of the procedure of inductive content analysis in this study include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses that merely identify themes but do not describe the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded up to a maximum of up to [3].
\nResponses that merely quote themes mentioned in the stimulus material but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
\nResponses that merely state that inductive content analysis is concerned with finding themes in the transcripts but fail to describe any elements of the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded [0].
\n\n
\n
The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses the possible physical, social and psychological benefits of dog ownership for the elderly in the UK.
\nAs the number of elderly people is expected to rise in the near future, it is important to ensure that they stay healthy as they get older. One way in which this can be done is through exercise. According to the researchers of this study, dog ownership may be a good way of encouraging the elderly to walk and stay fit.
\nThe aim of this qualitative study was to investigate how elderly dog owners believe their physical and mental health is affected by having a dog. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 24 dog owners from popular dog-walking sites in the south of England. Seventy-five percent of the participants were female and the mean age was 60. They all signed informed consent before joining the study.
\nThe researchers conducted four focus group interviews, each with six different participants. The facilitator used an interview protocol with some prepared questions to encourage discussions. Examples of these questions are: “What does your dog mean to you?” and “What are you looking for in a walk?” Each interview lasted around 1.5 hours and did not end until participants agreed that all important topics had been discussed. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to prepare for inductive content analysis (thematic analysis).
\nThe analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:
\nThe researchers concluded that owning a dog may increase physical and psychological health for the elderly and therefore lead to them having a better quality of life. However, more research is needed, as this is a new research area.
\n[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,
and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]
Discuss the use of focus group interviews in this study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors relevant for the use of focus group interviews in this study.
\nResponses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.
\nA focus group interview is a discussion guided by a facilitator. The group discussion is carefully planned to create a positive environment in which participants are free to talk openly. In this way, they are encouraged to express their attitudes on the topic under investigation. Focus group interviews are often used in research studies where the aim is to explore a specific problem in more depth and to guide future action. This is also the case in this study, which is focused on a specific age group and a new research area into potential health benefits for the elderly of owning a dog. Participants interact with each other during the focus group interview as they would in real life and this contributes to rich data.
\nDiscussion points could include but are not limited to:
\n\n
Describe the effect of one neurotransmitter on human behaviour with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of the effect of one neurotransmitter on human behaviour in relation to one relevant study.
\nExamples of appropriate studies include, but are not limited to:
\nAnimal research may be used to describe an effect of one neurotransmitter, but the response must then be linked to human behaviour. If there is no explicit link to human behaviour, a maximum of [6] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate describes the effect of more than one neurotransmitter, credit should be given only to the first effect described.
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study described.
\nIf a candidate describes the effect of one neurotransmitter without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing the effect of the neurotransmitter, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nHL - Most candidates were able to identify a relevant neurotransmitter and a relevant research study but many found it a challenge to describe the effect of the neurotransmitter on human behaviour and to use the selected study effectively in light of the question. A number of candidates used animal studies, Martinez and Kesner (1991) being the most popular choice, but only a minority of these responses showed an explicit link to human behaviour. As a result, even the most well-written of these responses did not access marks in the top band. Unfortunately, in some responses to this question, candidates used irrelevant examples of hormones or used potentially relevant studies such as Antonova (2011) but inaccurately identified scopolamine as a neurotransmitter rather than acetylcholine.
\nSL - Most candidates were able to identify a relevant neurotransmitter and a relevant research study but many found it a challenge to describe the effect of the neurotransmitter on human behaviour and to use the selected study effectively in light of the question. Some responses spent time describing how neurotransmission works instead of focusing on the effect on behaviour.
\nThe highest marks were usually awarded to descriptions of Fisher, Aron and Brown (2005) with detailed descriptions of the link to attraction/addictive behaviour. Several candidates used animal studies, Martinez and Kesner (1991) being the most popular choice, but only a minority of these responses showed an explicit link to human behaviour. As a result, even the most well-written of these responses did not access marks in the top band.
\nReferences to serotonin and depression were also limited, particularly references to transporter genes where the focus was on genes rather than the serotonin and its effect on behaviour.
\nUnfortunately, in some responses to this question, candidates used irrelevant examples of hormones or used potentially relevant studies such as Antonova (2011) but inaccurately identified scopolamine as a neurotransmitter rather than acetylcholine.
\nDescribe one study investigating reconstructive memory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating reconstructive memory.
\nThe description of the study should include the aim, procedure and results of the study. The description should explicitly demonstrate conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory.
\nExamples of appropriate studies could include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes or explains a theory of reconstructive memory – for example, the role of schema or emotion on memory – but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nHL - Not many candidates were able to show explicit conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory beyond a superficial statement of memory being unreliable. Several candidates focused on schema theory which was described in unnecessary detail but was not clearly linked to reconstruction. Weaker responses provided descriptions of a relevant study that were lacking in important detail or contained inaccuracy.
\nThe most popular choice of study was Loftus and Palmer's 1974 experiment but a surprisingly high number of responses could not accurately describe the procedure. A minority of responses provided any depth of detail in terms of results.
\nSL - This question asked candidates to describe a study. Some candidates instead wrote long responses about reconstructive memory with very little detail of the study. Top responses were able to correctly identify the aim, procedure and findings of a study, then use the conclusion to demonstrate conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory. However, many candidates did not describe the procedures in adequate detail or make use of terminology linked to research methodology – e.g. the design, independent/dependent variables or controls.
\nBartlett (1932), Loftus and Palmer (1974), and Brewer and Treyens (1981) were the most prolific choices, varying in detail and link to reconstructive memory. Most responses fell into the middle markband based on the detail of descriptions of the procedures of the relevant study.
\nWeaker responses provided descriptions of a relevant study that were lacking in important detail or contained inaccuracy. The most popular choice of study was Loftus and Palmer's (1974) experiment but a surprisingly high number of responses could not accurately describe it with accuracy. There was sometimes confusion with mixed descriptions of the two Loftus experiments, eg using all five verbs and asking about broken glass. In addition, very few candidates relayed accurate descriptions of the Loftus and Pickrell’s (1995) ‘lost in the mall’ study.
\nSome candidates failed to be credited because they presented studies on flashbulb memory which did not relate to reconstructive memory.
\nOutline social identity theory with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.
\nResponses should identify the key concepts of social identity theory which include, but are not limited to:
\nStudies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study described.
\nIf a candidate outlines social identity theory without reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate only describes a study related to social identity theory but does not outline the theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nHL - Most candidates were able to demonstrate some understanding of social identity theory (SIT) and include a relevant study as support. However, outlines of the theory were sometimes very limited and simply addressed the formation of in-groups and out-groups. The study details often lacked detail especially in terms of the results of the study and weaker candidates struggled to show how the study was relevant to the theory. Stronger responses were successful in outlining the key features of SIT and using a relevant and well-described study to exemplify those features. Several candidates confused social cognitive theory with SIT so gained no marks or were unable to gain many marks as they chose to use irrelevant studies such as Pavlov's classical conditioning study or Seligman's study on learned helplessness to support their response.
\nSL - Most candidates were able to demonstrate some understanding of social identity theory (SIT) and include a relevant study as support. The stronger candidates were successful in outlining the key features of SIT and using a relevant and well-described study to exemplify those features: Tajfel (1971), Sherif (1961), and Cialdini (1976) provided the best answers.
\nHowever, outlines of the theory were sometimes very limited and simply addressed the formation of ingroups and out-groups. The study often lacked detail especially in terms of the results and weaker candidates struggled to show how the study was relevant to the theory. Several candidates confused social learning theory with SIT so gained limited marks as they chose irrelevant studies such as Bandura to support their response.
\nStudies on conformity such as Zimbardo also appeared as a popular choice, again this rarely gained marks as little or no link was made to SIT.
\nDiscuss one or more techniques used to study the brain in relation to behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the way in which techniques are used to study the brain in relation to behaviour
\nBrain imaging techniques include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nThe focus of the response should be on the discussion of how the techniques are used to study the brain. Although an understanding of how the technique works may be beneficial, it is not required for marks in the top band.
\nCandidates may discuss one brain imaging technique in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss more than one brain imaging technique in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIn general, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the range of techniques used to study the brain in relation to behaviour and there were a wide range of studies used in response to this question.
\nThose occurring most frequently were Maguire et al (2000), Corkin (1997) with HM, Fisher et al. (2005) and Sharot (2007). The best answers used imaging techniques though some did successfully make use of post mortem and lesions in conjunction with these, drawing out contrasts. The stronger candidates gave detailed accounts of more than one imaging technique and accompanying study which identified specific areas of the brain linked to a behaviour. They also included detailed discussion of why the technology was used and its strengths and limitations, often comparing the techniques.
\nThere was some confusion over what constitutes a technique to study the brain, with some candidates discussing experiments or twin studies which were not relevant. Weaker candidates also focused their critical thinking on evaluation of studies rather than evaluation of the techniques. Some of the weaker answers also confused method with technique so there was description of the method of case study rather than a focus on the technique being used. Phineas Gage usually came into this category. Accounts of HM lost focus because the response concentrated on the brain injury and memory loss rather than on how the MRI was used.
\nDiscuss the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.
\nResponses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion such as intelligence, perception, memory or decision making.
\nAppropriate research may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss the influence of one emotion or emotion in general in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss different types of influences of emotion in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first one.
\nHL - Many candidates were able to respond to this question with appropriate research, mostly related to Flashbulb Memory. Weaker responses briefly described studies but failed to give an adequate theoretical context in terms of the influence of emotion on one cognitive process. Several candidates struggled to provide any meaningful discussion however so that the essay was lacking in critical thinking and was very generic in its approach to the question.
\nSL - Many candidates were able to respond to this question with appropriate research, mostly related to Flashbulb Memory. Some of the better answers were able to use conflicting flashbulb studies to present an argument linked to the role of emotion.
\nWeaker responses briefly described studies but failed to give an adequate theoretical context in terms of the influence of emotion on one cognitive process. Several candidates struggled to provide any meaningful discussion however so that the essay was lacking in critical thinking and was very generic in its approach to the question.
\nDiscuss the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition.
\nIt is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between behaviour and cognition.
\nAppropriate research may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss a small number of cultural influences in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of cultural influences in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\n\n
HL - This question provided a wide range of responses but several candidates simply described and evaluated research without really engaging with the question and discussing how or why culture influences behaviour/cognition and how effective these explanations are. Most responses were however able to demonstrate an understanding of the influence of culture with the majority addressing the role of culture and specifically cultural dimensions on either memory or conformity. One example of how weaker responses addressed the question was to focus on the role of schemas on memory. Some candidates used Bartlett's 1932 War of the Ghosts study but did not develop the influence of cultural schemas on memory. In addition, several candidates used either Loftus and Palmer's 1974 experiment or Brewer and Treyens’ 1981 experiment to support their responses so that there was a very tenuous link to the influence of culture and as a result the essay was focused more on the role of schemas on memory than on the demands of the question. For those responses focusing on how culture may influence conformity, several candidates included Asch's 1951 conformity study again with a very tenuous link to culture with reference to the cultural background of the sample.
\nThere were several examples of responses which used research on acculturation but these studies were not used effectively for the most part as they did not address the demands of the question with regard to explicit examples of cognition or behaviour.
\nSL - This question provided a wide range of responses but several candidates simply described and evaluated research without really engaging with the question and discussing how or why culture influences behaviour/cognition and how effective these explanations are. Most responses were, however, able to demonstrate an understanding of the influence of culture with the majority addressing the role of culture and specifically cultural dimensions on either memory or conformity.
\nThe best answers described two or more studies in detail and linked them clearly to the question. Berry’s study using the Asch paradigm was very popular and strong responses clearly linked it to individualism/collectivism. Cohen’s (1996) study of southern honour was also used effectively by several candidates. However, many candidates used Bartlett's (1932) War of the Ghosts study but did not develop the influence of cultural schemas on memory.
\nThere were several examples of responses which used research on acculturation but these studies were not used effectively for the most part as they did not address the demands of the question with regard to explicit examples of cognition or behaviour.
\nMany candidates struggled to interpret the question and wrote irrelevant material. The weaker candidates discussed how culture was transmitted, consequently mistakenly citing social learning theory particularly Bandura. Another area of confusion related to the development of stereotypes and their effect on perception and behaviour.
\nThe weaker responses were often anecdotal, with no reference to psychological terminology or studies.
\nDiscuss how animal research may provide insight into human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the contribution of animal research in the understanding of human behaviour.
\nResponses may highlight that animal research has been a major contributor to our understanding of many aspects of human behaviour such as:
\nResearch relevant to answering this question may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nMany candidates simply described research using animals and then evaluated it without any explicit consideration of how it provided insight into human behaviour or simply presented examples of animal research without any explicit link to the demands of the question. These generic responses indicate that several candidates may not have been adequately prepared for the HL extension or were unable to use potentially relevant studies to good effect in light of the demands of the question. Studies of brain plasticity were used in many responses but with no explicit reference to human behaviour or were just evaluated and discussed in terms of the ethical considerations of the study so the question was not directly addressed. Critical thinking was often limited and focused on the studies rather than on how the studies could be used to demonstrate insight into human behaviour. Some candidates did include some relevant human research with the intention of using it to show insight into human behaviour but the study often ended up simply being a second study with very limited effective use in terms of the demands of the question.
\nStronger responses to this question were in the minority but used examples of relevant animal studies very effectively to link to human behaviour and also demonstrated well developed critical thinking and relevant arguments beyond shallow coverage of methodological and ethical considerations.
\nDescribe localization with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of localization of function related to one relevant study.
\nResponses should describe localization of function, clearly indicating how a specific area of the brain is, or specific areas are, involved in behaviour or cognition.
\nCandidates should refer to an appropriate study that is relevant to the biological approach.
\nExamples of studies could include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes localization of function with reference to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes a relevant study, but localization of function and its link to the study is not explicitly described, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate addresses localization of function but does not refer to an appropriate study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nHL - Many candidates had a very limited description of localization.
\nIn addition, many candidates used Maguire’s study, but were not able to explain how it demonstrates localization. Most candidates focused on neuroplasticity without making the link to why neuroplasticity can be used as evidence of localization – that is, long-term potentiation in the posterior hippocampus leads to dendritic branching, indicating that this area of the brain is active during a behaviour. Many also mentioned the anterior hippocampus without any clarification.
\nSome candidates are still using research from the 19th century. Phineas Gage is only acceptable if described in light of modern research. Candidates writing about older research usually included inaccurate information – for example, about Gage’s autopsy. Candidates should use more modern research in order to access the full range of marks.
\nSL - The majority of responses used either Maguire’s study demonstrating neuroplasticity in London taxi drivers or Corkin/Milner’s research into Henry Molaison. Both studies looked at the hippocampus’s role in episodic and spatial memory, although there was a distinct lack of conceptual understanding with regards to both localization and how the research demonstrated this concept. Many candidates were not adequately able to explain the complexities of the hippocampus’s role and gave generic, explanatory statements.
\nMany candidates began their response with an irrelevant list of examples of localization or a list of studies (not those relevant to their answer), before actually beginning to address the question with their specific example and study. This sometimes included a simple list of areas of the brain and their function.
\nA large proportion of candidates used outdated research originating in the 19th century. Phineas Gage, Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke constituted the majority of these. Whilst these are mentioned in both the textbooks and the markscheme, candidates using these examples were often not able to access the top mark bands as their explanations included many errors and misconceptions.
\nFinally, many responses provided unnecessary descriptions and evaluations of concepts and research. Candidates often described how research into localization has developed in terms of brain imaging technology and then also spent unnecessary time evaluating research.
\nExplain one cultural dimension with brief reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of one cultural dimension.
\nCultural dimensions may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses should present the core traits that define the cultural dimension. For example, individualistic societies focus on uniqueness, achievement and freedom, whereas collectivistic societies focus on family, relationships and a common fate or heritage.
\nCandidates could explain the chosen cultural dimension generally, such as it is the effect of a culture on the beliefs and values of a society, or in a more detailed manner with explanations based on social mobility, agricultural versus urban, democratic principles, economic stability, etc. Both explanations are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate explains more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first explanation.
\nIf a candidate describes a relevant study, but a cultural dimension is not explained, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate explains one cultural dimension without reference to a study, up to a maximum of [6] should be awarded.
\nHL - Strong responses wrote a detailed description of one cultural dimension and then explained it in terms of food accumulation, economic stability, history of democracy or religious influences.
\nSome candidates defined all of the dimensions and gave brief examples for each. In this case, only the first example was assessed.
\nSL - The vast majority of candidates discussed the cultural dimension of Individualism and Collectivism followed by a description of either Hofstede, Berry and Katz, Kulkofsky, or Petrova’s research. This question was generally answered well, with an impressive variety of relevant research described by candidates. There were however some responses that discussed the concept of enculturation with no explicit links to cultural dimensions.
\nDiscuss the effect of pheromones on human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of pheromones on human behaviour.
\nCandidates may address the effect of pheromones in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable. Behaviours may include: attraction, judgments of attractiveness, maternal behaviour toward infants, sociosexual behaviours (kissing, dating, sexual intercourse, etc.)
\nCandidates may address the ambiguity of research into human pheromones and include research that shows a lack of evidence for their existence or they may argue for their existence. Both approaches are acceptable.
\nRelevant research may include but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nAnimal research (eg Bind et al., 2013; Wyatt, 2003) may be used to describe the effect of pheromones but the response must then be linked to human behaviour. If there is no explicit link to human behaviour the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking.
\nThere were many strong responses in this question and candidates demonstrated an impressive breadth and depth of learning. The ambiguous concept of pheromones in humans was mentioned in the majority of responses and the stronger answers also discussed evidence for and/or against the role of vomeronasal and olfactory sense. Weaker responses confused pheromones with hormones and/or neurotransmitters.
\nRelevant psychological research was described in detail and once again there was an impressive variety of empirical evidence which either supported and/or refuted the existence of human pheromones.
\nFamiliar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.
\nDiscuss one or more biases in thinking and/or decision-making.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.
\nThinking and decision-making are closely related cognitive processes and candidates do not need to make a distinction between the two.
\nCandidates 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.
\nExamples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may address one bias in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of biases in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nHL - Candidates demonstrated good understanding of cognitive biases and relevant research. Many candidates, however, only defined the biases and did not actually explain why we use them.
\nMany candidates struggled to write a coherent summary of Wason’s studies – and they often confused matching bias, correspondence bias and conformity bias. Many candidates also struggled to explain how cognitive dissonance could be considered a bias.
\nSL - Many responses demonstrated a good understanding of cognitive biases and provided appropriate and relevant supporting empirical research, showing a sound grasp of these psychological concepts. There were good explanations of Dual System Theory and Tversky and Kahneman’s supporting research was described well. Some candidates confused their biases, explaining another in its place – common examples included: framing effect, anchoring bias, illusory correlation, confirmation bias and the peakend rule. Many responses attempted to describe Wason’s Task Studies with limited degrees of success.
\nThere was some confusion with regard to stereotypes as an example of cognitive bias. There were also numerous responses addressing social bias, such as attribution, rather than cognitive bias. A number of responses also discussed cultural and gender biases.
\nFinally, there was little attempt to evaluate the research and theory of decision making/cognitive biases outside of generic statements about procedure, generalizability and ecological validity.
\nEvaluate social identity theory, with reference to one or more studies.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of social identity theory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nStudies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking.
\nHL - There were some strong responses to this question; however, many candidates evaluated relevant research, rather than actually evaluating Social Identity Theory (SIT).
\nThere were some difficulties in applying research to address the question. Many candidates struggled to write a coherent summary of Tajfel’s research. There were many incorrect claims regarding conflict in the original study. Candidates who wrote about Sherif often focused on conflict resolution and Realistic Conflict Theory, rather than on SIT. Candidates also were often not able to make a valid link between Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study and SIT. Some candidates used Jane Elliot’s classroom experience as research; this is not acceptable as research.
\nCritical thinking was often limited to generalizability and ecological validity. This was a superficial approach to the question. Strong responses discussed the applications of the theory, measurement of the constructs of self-esteem and salience, or research that challenges the minimum group paradigm.
\nSL - The vast majority of responses in this question did not evaluate Social Identity Theory (SIT) as required and merely described research supporting the theory. Many candidates showed an impressive grasp of the fundamental concepts constituting the theory and went into detail describing aspects such as social categorization, social comparison, social identification and positive distinctiveness.
\nA common flaw with responses was in candidates’ application of the research to the question. Tajfel and Turner’s research was not described well and both experiments contained errors. Sherif’s research was described with regards to Realistic Conflict Theory and the links to SIT were not explicit. Some responses discussed Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, Bandura’s Bobo Doll study and Jane Elliot’s A Class Divided which are not appropriate examples. Asch’s study was also occasionally used in an attempt to link conformity to SIT.
\nDiscuss two or more ethical considerations in animal research when investigating the brain and behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the ethical considerations related to non-human animals and psychological research.
\nCandidates will likely describe the current guidelines (eg British Psychological Society, American Psychological Association) that regulate using animals for the purposes of research.
\nA wide range of research studies may be relevant, but the focus of the response should be on ethical considerations, and not an evaluation of the methodology of studies. Evaluation of research which is not focused on ethical considerations is not relevant to this question.
\nEthical considerations include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nA discussion of ethical standards for human research – informed consent, deception,right to withdraw or debriefing – is of marginal relevance and will earn low marks for criteria B and D.
\nIf a candidate only discusses one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.
\n\n
Although there were some very strong responses, many candidates struggled with this question. Many candidates only discussed “undue stress or harm” but considered it two different ethical considerations.
\nCandidates lost marks for focus when they had long discussions of human ethics before turning to animal research. Responses should focus on the demands of the question; it is not the goal for candidates to tell all they know about ethics.
\nFew candidates applied the command term. Critical thinking with regard to the implications of ethical considerations – e.g. the use of fewer animals affecting reliability of findings, the choice of computer simulations rather than using biological systems or the problem that the requirement to justify research leads to potential biases or even falsification of data – were rarely addressed. Often candidates simply evaluated the studies in terms of generalizability, ecological validity and internal validity, which was of marginal relevance to the question.
\nFinally, candidates tended to take an oversimplified approach to the question, making statements that animals may never be stressed or harmed – or animal research can never be generalized to humans. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of the complexity of the question.
\nDiscuss validity and reliability of diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that addresses various aspects of validity and reliability of diagnosis. Although a discussion of both validity and reliability is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant classification systems in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses only validity or only reliability, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nThis was a very popular question. In the majority of cases it was not well answered – candidates tended to provide simple definitions of validity and reliability and then focus on description of research studies (most popular Rosenhan’s study on validity and Cooper’s study on reliability). Descriptions of these studies were rather basic and often inaccurate. The evaluation was also oversimplified and evidence of critical thinking was often not relevant to the question. Sometimes only reliability or validity was addressed or the candidate failed to discuss what the focus of the question was and randomly used validity or reliability in the response. Stronger candidates did a good job of differentiating between validity and reliability, as well as supporting their argument with relevant research studies. References were often made to the following studies: Li-Repac (1980) and Lipton and Simon (1985).
\nDiscuss prevalence rates of one or more disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of prevalence rates of one or more disorders.
\nThe disorder(s) chosen are likely to come from those presented in the guide:
\nExamples of studies investigating prevalence of specific disorders could include but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThis was also a popular question. In many cases, this question seemed to be misunderstood or it attracted candidates who tended to provide a response that was of marginal relevance to the questions that appeared in the exam. Weaker responses discussed causes of disorders (most often depression) and gave long discussions on biological, cognitive and sociocultural origins of disorders without linking this to prevalence rates. Stronger responses discussed several types of prevalence rates, chose one disorder (most often depression or eating disorders) and discussed conditions affecting prevalence rates (for example, gender and/or culture, socioeconomic status, and so on).
\nDiscuss the role of culture in the treatment of one or more disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of culture in the treatment of one or more disorders.
\nThe disorder(s) chosen are likely to be from those presented in the guide:
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points related to culture and treatment may include but are not limited to:
\nIf the candidate addresses disorders in general, rather than specific disorder(s), award up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.
\nThis was the least popular question within the option and the quality of responses tended to range greatly. Candidates had problems staying focused on the idea of “treatment”. Unfortunately, in many cases candidates ignored the part of the question that required them to discuss the role of culture in treatment and instead discussed the role of culture in diagnosis or discussed cultural differences in symptoms of a disorder. Occasionally candidates showed great insight, incorporating newer treatment techniques emerging to deal with cultural specificity.
\nContrast two theories of cognitive development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between two theories of cognitive development.
\nTheories may include, but are not limited to:
\nContrasting points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf the candidate provides only an implicit contrast, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [2] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nIf the candidate chooses a theory that is not specific to cognitive development (eg Bowlby, Erikson), award up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.
\nThis was a very popular question in the option Developmental Psychology. The majority of candidates chose to address Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s theory. Only a few candidates chose Kolhlberg’s theory and some incorrectly chose Freud’s and Erikson’s theory. Many candidates were well taught in terms of understanding the two competing theories, and incorporated research designed to support each theory. If there was a problem for candidates, it was in terms of a lack of contrast between the two theories.
\nIn some cases, candidates provided only a brief contrast at the very end or more often candidates evaluated each theory separately.
\nDiscuss the role of peers and/or play in development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of the role of peers and/or play in development.
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nTopics for discussion may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one aspect of the role of peers or play in development in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss a larger number of aspects of the role of peers and/or play in development in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThis was the least popular question within the option and it was often addressed with minimal knowledge. Overall, there was a range of different responses, with some better candidates showing knowledge of theories of peer interaction and play, while others attempted to make what they had learned in Developmental Psychology fit the question, rather than providing a clear answer.
\nTop quality responses tended to address a number of different aspects of the role of peers and/or play in development:
\nUnfortunately, some responses were anecdotal or contained research irrelevant to the question (e.g., Bobo doll experiment, Harlow’s monkey study)
\nDiscuss the role of attachment in development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of attachment in development. Candidates may address the role of attachment in childhood and/or in any later stage of life.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nResponses referring to research with animals, such as Harlow’s studies with rhesus monkeys, are relevant but must be linked to attachment in humans. Responses that do not explicitly make any link to human behaviour should be awarded up to a maximum of [2] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nThis was a rather popular question and usually well addressed. Candidates often referred to Bowlby’s research, Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) studies, Hazan and Shaver’s (1983) study and Rossi and Rossi’s (1990) study. Some candidates using animal research as evidence did not make a clear link between human and animal behaviour.
\nTo what extent do dispositional factors and/or health beliefs affect health?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that dispositional factors and/or health beliefs have on health.
\nThe topics related to health are likely to come from one of the following (from the psychology guide):
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other relevant factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates could choose to discuss the extent to which dispositional factors or health beliefs affect one, or more than one health-related phenomena. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may address a small number of factors and/or health beliefs in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may address a larger number of factors and/or health beliefs in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThis was one of the least responded to questions within the option, as well as on the entire exam. Those candidates who were prepared to answer this question did well, especially in terms of how health beliefs affected health (obesity and stress were the most common issues addressed). Some simply responded by addressing health concerns in general. On several occasions, candidates confused “dispositional” and “situational” factors and therefore they could not access the middle or higher markbands for criterion B. In addition to this, most responses provided descriptive accounts with little or no evidence of critical thinking. These responses provided some general knowledge and examples of research studies with little attempt to link the studies to the question being addressed.
\nEvaluate one or more studies related to explanations of one or more health problems.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires the candidate to make an appraisal of one or more studies related to explanations of one or more health problems by weighing up the strengths and limitations. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not the explanation of health problems. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, this does not have to be evenly balanced.
\nThe health problems are likely to come from the list in the psychology guide, namely:
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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 markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms, theories and concepts. Overall, this includes knowledge of the specific topic and general knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics (for example definitions of relevant terms in research methodology or ethics in research).
\nMarks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a 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.
\nCriterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.
\nThis was the most popular question within the option and candidates who were well prepared addressed it. Candidates usually chose to focus on obesity or stress, with a lesser number addressing addiction. In the majority of cases, responses provided two relevant studies and continued with evaluation. The biggest challenge for some candidates was providing evidence of knowledge and understanding by explaining relevant terms related to Health Psychology and research methods. Several well-known studies were used to answer the question, as well as more recent, but still relevant studies. In either case, this answer produced some high quality responses.
\nDiscuss one or more ethical considerations related to promoting health.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of ethical considerations related to promoting health.
\nRelevant ethical considerations discussed may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates rarely chose this question. In the majority of cases, candidates choosing this question failed to address it thoroughly. There was a lack of focus on “ethical considerations of health promotion”. Instead, most candidates addressed ethical considerations of studies on health or wrote about health promotion in general. Overall, the responses were overly descriptive, lacking both focus and evidence of critical thinking. Only a minority of candidates provided detailed and relevant responses. In these cases, ethical concerns included fear arousal, cultural factors and deception.
\nTo what extent does the sociocultural approach contribute to the understanding of personal relationships?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors to the understanding of personal relationships.
\nRelevant factors which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or cognitive factors in order to address the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may consider a small number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nMost candidates addressing this question provided good general knowledge and chose appropriate empirical evidence to support their knowledge. Candidates usually chose to write about familiarity, proximity, social and cultural norms, socioeconomic status, and/or communication.
\nSome candidates provided additional information on biological and cognitive factors affecting personal relationships in order to address the “to what extent” command term. At times, this was done very effectively as their responses reflected awareness that one approach to studying human behaviour is usually insufficient. Overall, this question attracted a range of different responses that unfortunately lacked in terms of critical thinking.
\nDiscuss origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution.
\nOrigins of conflict may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant factors related to conflict resolution may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant theories/studies could include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may consider a small number of origins in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of origins in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nMost candidates chose to talk about conflict and provided some relevant examples and studies in this regard. The more astute candidates, however, looked at what causes conflict and what can be done to resolve conflicts on a personal and/or collective level. Critical thinking focused primarily on cultural or gender considerations, as well as how effective some conflict resolution attempts have been.
\nEvaluate one or more studies related to promoting prosocial behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths and limitations of one or more studies related to promoting prosocial behaviour. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced.
\nThe concept of promoting prosocial behaviour refers to any method that develops prosocial behavior (i.e., Subido Methodology) or a more general application of a model investigating factors investigating prosocial behavior (i.e., Social Cognitive Theory suggesting the use of TV or video games).
\nRelevant studies related to promoting prosocial behavior may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf 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 markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.
\nIn questions that ask for evaluation of studies, marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms, theories and concepts. Overall, this includes knowledge of the specific topic and general knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics (for example definitions of relevant terms in research methodology or ethics in research). Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a 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.
\nThis was one of the most popular questions on the exam. A variety of studies was used here, including some new studies that involved the use of media and technology to promote prosocial behaviour. However, other candidates lapsed into a discussion of bystanderism. A common error was to not include the idea of promoting prosocial behaviour, which was specifically asked for in the answer.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.
\nMultitasking (doing more than one task at a time) and its consequences on learning has become a growing concern in education because students are increasingly engaged with their laptops or smartphones. In classrooms, students tend to switch between academic and non-academic tasks. Research indicates that this multitasking results in cognitive overload and weaker encoding of primary information into long-term memory.
\nThe aim of the study was to investigate if multitasking on a laptop would impair learning as measured by the number of correct scores on a comprehension test. The participants were forty undergraduate students from a university in North America (N=40). There were even numbers of males and females and the mean age was 18.9 years. A convenience sample of students enrolled in an introductory psychology course received course credit for participating. They were recruited from a psychology research website. It was only explained that the study involved listening to a class lecture and filling out a multiple‑choice quiz.
\nAll participants attended a 45-minute lecture on meteorology in a traditional college classroom. Their primary task was to take notes using their laptops. The 20 participants in the multitasking condition were also asked to complete 12 online tasks during the lecture. The participants were randomly allocated a seat number as they entered the classroom. The researchers told participants that their individual instruction sheet and consent form were placed on their seat. After the lecture, all participants completed a 40-question multiple-choice quiz on the lecture content in order to check their comprehension. Finally, they were debriefed.
\nThe results showed that participants who multitasked during the lecture scored 11 % lower than participants who did not multitask. The result was significant and consistent with previous studies showing that multitasking during learning negatively affects encoding and transfer of information to long‑term memory.
[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of
laptop multitasking in higher education.’ Pédagogie Collégiale, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 2014;
http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf
Source 2: adapted from Computers & Education, Vol. 62, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston
and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both
users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]
Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
\nDescribe the sampling method used in the study.
\nSuggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice.
\nAward [1] for stating experiment (acceptable terms: lab experiment, controlled experiment, true experiment). Stating ‘experiment’ without specification is acceptable.
\nAward [0] for field experiment, natural experiment, quasi experiment, field study.
\nAnswers related to characteristics of the experiment may include two of the following characteristics: Award [1] per relevant point, up to a maximum of [2].
\nAnswers that outline characteristics such as controls, cause-effect relationship, IV and DV, may be awarded marks for this even if they have not identified the research method as a lab experiment.
\nAward [1] for stating convenience (or opportunity) sampling. Self-selected sampling (or volunteer sample) is acceptable if linked to convenience (as this is specifically mentioned in the stimulus paper).
\nDescription of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics: [1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
\nAward [1] for naming an alternative or additional research method and [2] for rationale.
\nAlternative/additional research methods that could be used to study the same topic as the experiment in the stimulus (that is, if multitasking on a laptop while listening to a lecture impairs learning) include, but are not limited to:
\nA survey
\nRationales for using surveys as an additional or alternative method could include, but are not limited to:
\nFocus group interviews
\nRationales for using focus group interviews as an additional or alternative method could include, but are not limited to:
\nMany candidates answered this question well and scored the maximum of 3 marks. Those candidates identified the research method as a laboratory or true experiment and could refer to characteristics such as manipulation of the IV to measure its effect on the DV, control, or random allocation of participants to conditions. It was obvious that those candidates had knowledge and understanding of what constitutes a laboratory experiment and used knowledge from their work in the IA to identify the necessary clues in the stimulus material.
\nWeaker answers suggested a number of research methods such as quasi-experiment, correlational study, field study, field experiment, qualitative experiment, case study, naturalistic, and covert observation – demonstrating very limited knowledge of research methods in general, and in this case, the lab experiment used despite the information in the stimulus paper that clearly indicated this (for example, random allocation to conditions and controls).
\nMost candidates identified the sampling method correctly as it was stated in the stimulus material. However, not all candidates were able to describe characteristics of convenience sampling but just wrote how researchers recruited participants in the study.
\nIn spite of the fact that the sampling method was made explicit in the stimulus paper a few candidates suggested a number of other sampling methods such as snowball, quota sampling, and purposive sampling.
\nCandidates who had identified the original research method as a lab experiment did well on this question, suggesting mostly survey or various forms of interview and gave relevant reasons, for example having the possibility to collect qualitative data that could give an insight into the participants’ subjective experience of the effects of multitasking on their academic work. It should be noted that it is important to suggest a research method in question 1c that can be used to investigate the same aim as that the original study.
\nMany of the weaker candidates who had not correctly identified the research method in question 1a suggested as an alternative or additional method a laboratory experiment.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.
\nMultitasking (doing more than one task at a time) and its consequences on learning has become a growing concern in education because students are increasingly engaged with their laptops or smartphones. In classrooms, students tend to switch between academic and non-academic tasks. Research indicates that this multitasking results in cognitive overload and weaker encoding of primary information into long-term memory.
\nThe aim of the study was to investigate if multitasking on a laptop would impair learning as measured by the number of correct scores on a comprehension test. The participants were forty undergraduate students from a university in North America (N=40). There were even numbers of males and females and the mean age was 18.9 years. A convenience sample of students enrolled in an introductory psychology course received course credit for participating. They were recruited from a psychology research website. It was only explained that the study involved listening to a class lecture and filling out a multiple‑choice quiz.
\nAll participants attended a 45-minute lecture on meteorology in a traditional college classroom. Their primary task was to take notes using their laptops. The 20 participants in the multitasking condition were also asked to complete 12 online tasks during the lecture. The participants were randomly allocated a seat number as they entered the classroom. The researchers told participants that their individual instruction sheet and consent form were placed on their seat. After the lecture, all participants completed a 40-question multiple-choice quiz on the lecture content in order to check their comprehension. Finally, they were debriefed.
\nThe results showed that participants who multitasked during the lecture scored 11 % lower than participants who did not multitask. The result was significant and consistent with previous studies showing that multitasking during learning negatively affects encoding and transfer of information to long‑term memory.
[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of
laptop multitasking in higher education.’ Pédagogie Collégiale, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 2014;
http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf
Source 2: adapted from Computers & Education, Vol. 62, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston
and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both
users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]
Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.
\nFor describing the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
\nFor explaining further ethical considerations that could be applied: [1] per relevant point made with a maximum of [3].
\nAnswers do not need to follow the order of applied and further considerations in writing about the ethical considerations in relation to the study. Any order of mentioning the ethical considerations are valid when awarding marks.
\nThis question was overall the one that was best answered although some responses were rather generic. Candidates correctly identified consent and debriefing in the stimulus material and the stronger answers provided an appropriate explanation related to ethics in general and to the study in particular with reference to the stimulus material. Many candidates spotted that light deception was used in the study, and argued why it would be necessary and that participants were informed about the true purpose of the study during debriefing. However, a number of candidates stated that both informed consent and deception were used in the study, suggesting that the concept of informed consent is not fully understood. For further ethical considerations candidates typically referred to anonymity, confidentiality, or avoidance of harm. Some candidates only identified a few relevant ethical considerations and therefore did not earn full marks for this question. A problem for some candidates was that they did not pay attention to the command term and merely listed ethical considerations.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.
\nMultitasking (doing more than one task at a time) and its consequences on learning has become a growing concern in education because students are increasingly engaged with their laptops or smartphones. In classrooms, students tend to switch between academic and non-academic tasks. Research indicates that this multitasking results in cognitive overload and weaker encoding of primary information into long-term memory.
\nThe aim of the study was to investigate if multitasking on a laptop would impair learning as measured by the number of correct scores on a comprehension test. The participants were forty undergraduate students from a university in North America (N=40). There were even numbers of males and females and the mean age was 18.9 years. A convenience sample of students enrolled in an introductory psychology course received course credit for participating. They were recruited from a psychology research website. It was only explained that the study involved listening to a class lecture and filling out a multiple‑choice quiz.
\nAll participants attended a 45-minute lecture on meteorology in a traditional college classroom. Their primary task was to take notes using their laptops. The 20 participants in the multitasking condition were also asked to complete 12 online tasks during the lecture. The participants were randomly allocated a seat number as they entered the classroom. The researchers told participants that their individual instruction sheet and consent form were placed on their seat. After the lecture, all participants completed a 40-question multiple-choice quiz on the lecture content in order to check their comprehension. Finally, they were debriefed.
\nThe results showed that participants who multitasked during the lecture scored 11 % lower than participants who did not multitask. The result was significant and consistent with previous studies showing that multitasking during learning negatively affects encoding and transfer of information to long‑term memory.
[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of
laptop multitasking in higher education.’ Pédagogie Collégiale, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 2014;
http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf
Source 2: adapted from Computers & Education, Vol. 62, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston
and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both
users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]
Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nMarks should be awarded according to the descriptors in the markbands. Each level of the markband corresponds to a range of marks to differentiate candidates' performance. A best-fit approach is used to ascertain which particular mark to use from the possible range for each level descriptor.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes a range of arguments. Conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate knowledge of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material.
\nGeneralization means drawing inferences from results of a study to something outside the study (external validity). The study in the stimulus is quantitative. The most appropriate model of generalization would be statistical generalization but that would require a random sample because this is typically representative of the target population.
\nDiscussion points related to the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study in the stimulus material could include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates who use the terms generalization and transferability interchangeably should not be penalized.
\nThis question was by far the one that candidates found most challenging. Generalizability in quantitative research refers to the extent to which findings from a sample can be generalized to an entire population provided that the sample is representative of the population.
\nStronger answers referred to the fact that the sample in the experiment was a non-probabilistic convenience sample and based their discussion on knowledge of generalization from sample to population or statistical generalization, but such answers were rather few. Other candidates based their argument on internal and external validity as well as reliability of the results using concepts such as construct validity and population validity. Some of these answers were extremely generic, demonstrating sound knowledge but often it was not linked to the specific study.
\nWeaker answers only addressed the actual sample – that is, describing students in North America, equal numbers of females and males, etc, but wrote nothing on the sampling method and there was no discussion but rather statements. Such answers scored marks in the lower range. The weakest answers provided very limited statements with typical arguments being that results cannot be generalized to all students as everyone handles multitasking differently, or that multitasking can be distracting to some but not so much to others because some students are really good at multitasking in class, or that the results could not be generalized to older people as their brains are better developed. This kind of argumentation demonstrates a very limited knowledge of generalization in research and scored in the lower range.
\nIt was often seen that candidates mixed up the concepts of generalization and transference, for example, using them interchangeably as if they are the same. Some candidates offered generic answers based on qualitative research such as representational, inferential and theoretical generalization without much understanding of the problems in such an approach in an experiment. Some also used the concept of transference in their argument in spite of the characteristics of the study in the stimulus paper.
\nTransference is a concept used in qualitative research and it is related to how people interpret the results of a qualitative study in terms of being able to be applied, for example to other populations or settings. However, it is important to notice that this is not an objective approach as with probability sampling and external validity. Some responses offered sensible arguments, especially of representational generalization as similar to generalization from sample to population or used the concept of population validity and this was credited.
\nOverall it seemed there is a need to teach what is understood by generalization in quantitative research as well as what is understood by transference (as well as representational, inferential and theoretical generalization) in qualitative research to help candidates master these different approaches to research.
\nDescribe neuroplasticity, with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of neuroplasticity with reference to one relevant study. Descriptions of neuroplasticity may show conceptual understanding of long-term potentiation, neurogenesis and/or synaptic pruning.
\nResponses should describe neuroplasticity indicating how the neural connections in the brain change with regard to a specific behaviour or cognitive process. Animal research is acceptable.
\nRelevant studies could include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study related to neuroplasticity, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes a relevant study, but neuroplasticity is not addressed, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate describes neuroplasticity but does not describe an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [5].
\nDescribe one study related to one model of memory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study related to one model of memory. The description of the study should include the aim, procedure and findings of the chosen study.
\nAppropriate models of memory may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies could include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be awarded only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate describes an appropriate model of memory but does not refer to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4].
\nOutline social cognitive theory with reference to one relevant study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe learning outcome “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of social cognitive theory in relation to one relevant study.
\nThe main aspects of social cognitive theory include:
\nResponses may refer to studies such as, but not limited to:
\nIf a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\nIf a candidate outlines social cognitive theory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.
\nIf a candidate describes a relevant study without outlining social cognitive theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.
\nDiscuss one evolutionary explanation of one behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one evolutionary explanation of one behaviour.
\nRelevant behaviour that could be discussed includes, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss a specific emotional or dysfunctional behaviour such as disgust or depression or may discuss emotional or dysfunctional behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one specific behaviour, credit should be given only to the first behaviour addressed.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one evolutionary explanation of behaviour, credit should be given only to the first discussion. However, candidates may address other explanations of the same behaviour and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss the evolutionary explanation addressed in the response.
\nDiscuss two or more ethical considerations related to one study investigating the reliability of one cognitive process.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to give a considered review of ethical considerations related to one study investigating the reliability of one cognitive process.
\nCognitive processes may include, but are not limited to, memory, thinking and decision-making.
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nThe reliability of a cognitive process is the extent to which it is open to distortion. Some schema studies are appropriate (eg Bartlett’s (1932) War of the Ghosts), whereas others do not address distortion (eg Bransford and Johnson, 1972).
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nDiscussions may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate only discusses one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nIf a candidate uses a study that is not relevant to the reliability of one cognitive process, then [0] should be awarded for criterion C. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one study, credit should be given to the first study addressed.
\nIf a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given to the first cognitive process addressed.
\nDiscuss the use of one research method to investigate individuals and groups.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one particular research method linked to the study of individuals and groups.
\nResearch methods may include, but are not limited to, experiments (laboratory, field or natural/quasi), observations and interviews. The focus of the response should be on the nature of the research method itself.
\nThe discussion should centre around social and not cultural aspects of behaviour.
\nExamples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nExamples of experiments (laboratory, field or quasi/natural) should be considered as only one method.
\nIf a candidate discusses more than one research method, credit should be given only to the first discussion. Candidates may address other research methods and be awarded marks for these as long as they are clearly used to discuss the main research method addressed in the response.
\nDiscuss how globalization may influence behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of globalization on behaviour.
\nBehaviour in this instance may include attitudes, identities or any other accepted behaviour.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss acculturation to the global culture or the role of contact with other cultures as a means of changing local culture; however, it is not relevant to discuss acculturation research based on immigrants moving to a new culture and the level to which one assimilates to the culture of a new country.
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscuss the role of two or more clinical biases in diagnosis.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of clinical biases in diagnosis.
\nExamples of clinical bias may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses only one clinical bias in diagnosis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nContrast two explanations of one or more disorders.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between two explanations of one or more disorders, referring to both explanations throughout. It is not necessary for candidates to evaluate the explanations in order to receive high marks.
\nThe disorder(s) chosen must come from the list in the guide:
\nExplanations contrasted may include, but are not limited to:
\nAlthough not limited to the following, factors that might be considered when contrasting two explanations include:
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate only discusses two explanations of one disorder without presenting a contrast, the response should be awarded a maximum of up to [3] for Criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nEvaluate the effectiveness of one or more treatments.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of the effectiveness of the chosen treatment(s) by weighing up its/their strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluative points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nTo what extent does childhood trauma affect development?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the impact of childhood trauma on development. Responses may address the influence of trauma on different aspects of development, such as physiological, cognitive and/or social development.
\nRelevant studies of childhood trauma on development include, but are not limited to:
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address resilience in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”. This could also be addressed by discussing the positive and negative effects of trauma. Both approaches are acceptable.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other relevant factors (such as deprivation, neglect or domestic violence) in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nDiscuss one or more theories of gender identity development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of gender identity development.
\nTheories discussed may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluate one or more theories of brain development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more theories of brain development by weighing up the strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nEvaluate the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nThe biopsychosocial model has been widely accepted in the field of health psychology. It takes into consideration biological factors, psychological factors, sociocultural factors, as well as the behaviours of an individual when considering how to reduce health risks, prevent illnesses, and promote healthy ways of living. The goal of this model is to find ways to help people stay healthy and to accept and commit to treatment methods for health problems.
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nEvaluate one or more explanations of one or more health problems.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more explanations of one or more health problems by weighing up the strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nCandidates are likely to write about health problems presented in the psychology guide:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nEvaluate one or more health promotion programmes.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more health programmes by weighing up the strengths and limitations. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain marks.
\nThe health promotion programme(s) chosen are likely to relate to one or more of the health problems presented in the psychology guide:
\nRelevant health promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:
\nEvaluation points may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nDiscuss one or more research methods used in the study of personal relationships.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of research methods used in the study of personal relationships.
\nRelevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:
\nExamples of studies that may be used could include:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nTo what extent does the sociocultural approach contribute to the understanding of group dynamics?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of the sociocultural approach to understanding group dynamics.
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address alternative approaches to understanding group dynamics as part of the response to the command term “to what extent”.
\nSociocultural factors in understanding group dynamics could include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may consider a small number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may consider a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss by-standerism, with reference to one or more studies.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” asks candidates to offer a considered review of by-standerism.
\nFactors influencing by-standerism could include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies could include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion could include but is not limited to:
\nStudies on prosocial behaviour should not be awarded credit for criterion C, use of research to support answer. However, if reference to prosocial behaviour is addressed as part of the discussion on by-standerism, credit can be awarded for criterion D, critical thinking.
\nThe stimulus material below describes a study on the influence of knowledge of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Stereotype threat means that people believe a negative stereotype about themselves.
\nPrevious research on stereotype threat and math suggests that women who are reminded of their gender before taking a math test will underperform compared to women who are not reminded of their gender.
\nThe aim of this study was to test if teaching about the potential effect of stereotype threat before a math multiple-choice test helps women to perform better.
\nA convenience sample of 80 female university students taking a course of introductory statistics (N=80) and with a mean age of 19.5 years was selected. Participants received extra credit for participation. The female experimenter informed participants about the study and before the participants signed an informed consent form, she informed them about their rights to confidentiality and anonymity and about their rights to withdraw themselves or their data at any time. They were not fully informed about the purpose of the study until debriefing.
\nThe participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:
\nAll participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.
\nThe results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.
The researcher concluded that knowledge of the stereotype threat had resulted in the better performance in condition 2. They suggested that teaching about stereotype threat could help other women to attribute anxiety about math to the stereotype and not to themselves.
Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
\nDescribe the sampling method used in the study.
\nSuggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice.
\nAward [1] for stating lab experiment (or true experiment). Stating ‘experiment’ without specification is acceptable.
\nAnswers related to characteristics of the method may include two of the following characteristics: [1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
\nAnswers that outline characteristics such as controls, cause effect relationship, IV and DV may be awarded marks for this even if they have not identified the research method as a lab experiment.
\nAward [1] for stating convenience (or opportunity) sampling.
\nDescription of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics: [1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
\nAward [1] for naming an alternative or additional research method and [2] for rationale.
\nAlternative or additional research methods include, but are not limited to:
\nFocus group interviews
\nRationales for using focus group interviews could include, but are not limited to:
\nSemi-structured interviews
\nRationales for using semi-structured interviews could include, but are not limited to:
\nThe stimulus material below describes a study on the influence of knowledge of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Stereotype threat means that people believe a negative stereotype about themselves.
\nPrevious research on stereotype threat and math suggests that women who are reminded of their gender before taking a math test will underperform compared to women who are not reminded of their gender.
\nThe aim of this study was to test if teaching about the potential effect of stereotype threat before a math multiple-choice test helps women to perform better.
\nA convenience sample of 80 female university students taking a course of introductory statistics (N=80) and with a mean age of 19.5 years was selected. Participants received extra credit for participation. The female experimenter informed participants about the study and before the participants signed an informed consent form, she informed them about their rights to confidentiality and anonymity and about their rights to withdraw themselves or their data at any time. They were not fully informed about the purpose of the study until debriefing.
\nThe participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:
\nAll participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.
\nThe results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.
The researcher concluded that knowledge of the stereotype threat had resulted in the better performance in condition 2. They suggested that teaching about stereotype threat could help other women to attribute anxiety about math to the stereotype and not to themselves.
Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.
\nFor describing the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
\nFor explaining further ethical considerations that could be applied: [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
\nThe stimulus material below describes a study on the influence of knowledge of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Stereotype threat means that people believe a negative stereotype about themselves.
\nPrevious research on stereotype threat and math suggests that women who are reminded of their gender before taking a math test will underperform compared to women who are not reminded of their gender.
\nThe aim of this study was to test if teaching about the potential effect of stereotype threat before a math multiple-choice test helps women to perform better.
\nA convenience sample of 80 female university students taking a course of introductory statistics (N=80) and with a mean age of 19.5 years was selected. Participants received extra credit for participation. The female experimenter informed participants about the study and before the participants signed an informed consent form, she informed them about their rights to confidentiality and anonymity and about their rights to withdraw themselves or their data at any time. They were not fully informed about the purpose of the study until debriefing.
\nThe participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:
\nAll participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.
\nThe results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.
The researcher concluded that knowledge of the stereotype threat had resulted in the better performance in condition 2. They suggested that teaching about stereotype threat could help other women to attribute anxiety about math to the stereotype and not to themselves.
Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of how a researcher could avoid bias.
\nBiases in research may originate from design of the experiment, the researchers, as well as the participants.
\nPossible ways for the researcher to avoid bias in this study could include but are not limited to:
\nArguments based on a conceptual framework related to qualitative research, for example, personal reflexivity should not be credited.
\nMarks should be awarded according to the descriptors in the markbands. Each level of the markband corresponds to a range of marks to differentiate candidates' performance. A best-fit approach is used to ascertain which particular mark to use from the possible range for each level descriptor.
\nDescribe one twin or kinship study.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account or summary of one twin or kinship (family) study.
\nThe description of the study should include the aim, procedure, results, and the conclusions of the study. Examples of twin or kinship studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates are not required to state exact concordance rates in order to be awarded full marks.
\nIf a candidate describes more than one twin or kinship study, credit should be given only to the first description.
\nWith reference to one study, outline one model of memory.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of one memory model.
\nRelevant models may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate outlines one model of memory without reference to one study, award up to a maximum of [5].
\nIf a candidate addresses a relevant study without outlining a model of memory, award up to a maximum of [4].
\nIf a candidate outlines more than one model of memory or more than one study, credit should be given only for the first model or study.
\nDescribe one study investigating cultural norms.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of a study investigating cultural norms.
\nThe description of the study should include the aim, procedure, results, and conclusions of the study.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nIf a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.
\n\n
Discuss the formation of stereotypes and/or the effect(s) of stereotypes on human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the formation of stereotypes and/or the effect(s) of stereotypes on human behaviour.
\nCandidates may address the effect of stereotypes in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address the effect of stereotypes on behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nExplanations for the formation of stereotypes may include, but are not limited to:
\nEffects of stereotypes on human behaviour may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss only the formation of stereotypes or only the effect(s) of stereotypes. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nIf a candidate addresses both formation and effect(s) of stereotypes, the response does not need to be equally balanced in order to access marks in the top bands.
\nCandidates may address one potential effect of stereotypes in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address more than one potential effect of stereotypes in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nDiscuss the effect of one or more neurotransmitters on behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effect of neurotransmitters on behaviour.
\nBehaviour in this instance may include emotion, motivation, memory or any other accepted behaviour.
\nNeurotransmitters and relevant effects on behaviour include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may use animal studies to discuss neurotransmitters as long as the discussion focuses on a behaviour.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nDiscussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss one neurotransmitter in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may discuss more than one neurotransmitter in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThere were many strong responses to this question where candidates demonstrated a solid understanding of the effect of neurotransmitters on behaviour. More robust responses described the process of synaptic transmission and specific neurotransmitters' functions; most common of these were dopamine, serotonin and acetylcholine. Weaker responses discussed hormones instead of neurotransmitters and described inappropriate research.
\nRelevant psychological research was described in detail, and there was an impressive variety of empirical evidence demonstrated which supported the effects of one or more neurotransmitters on behaviour. Many candidates described animal research, although there was a lack of clarity regarding the effects on human behaviour. Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted, and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill, often using a methodological evaluation.
\nDiscuss two or more ethical considerations in research investigating the link between emotion and cognition.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more ethical considerations in research investigating the link between emotion and cognition.
\nCandidates may refer to cognitive processes such as memory, thinking and decision-making, and schema.
\nEthical considerations may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses only one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.
\nCandidates struggled to identify areas of discussion of ethical issues regarding the interaction of emotion and cognition. Most candidates wrote about flashbulb memories or used studies about arousal (McGaugh and Cahill). Studies were described in detail on the stronger responses. Candidates often used a methodological evaluation of research, when it was not required by the question. Most responses discussed only one ethical consideration. Many responses focused on the point of \"do no harm\" psychological research, failing to discuss the cost vs benefit or the areas of uncertainty raised by this kind of research. Some candidates made unsustained assumptions about ethical considerations, stating that psychological studies permanently damaged subjects' cognition. In many cases, a list of all the ethical considerations was provided, but not an explicit link on how these ethical considerations should be taken into account when investigating human behaviour.
\nWith reference to research investigating the brain, discuss the role of animal research in understanding human behaviour.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of animal research in investigating the brain and behaviour. A clear link between animal research and the understanding of human behaviour must be made.
\nResearch that can be used to support the discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nDiscussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nThe use of animal studies that focus on hormones or genes that explicitly discuss the role of the brain in behaviour is an acceptable approach to the question. Candidates may discuss one or more behaviours. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates often described research using animals and evaluated it without explicit consideration of how it played a role in the understanding of human behaviour. Many candidates lacked an understanding of the complexity of the question and took an absolute position that animal research cannot be generalized to human behaviour. Stronger candidates were able to discuss how the brains of rats and humans are similar/different, genetic similarities, the social nature of animals, and the difficulties of operationalizing variables.
\nThe focus of the response needed to be on both the brain and behaviour. Studies of brain plasticity were used in many responses but with no explicit reference to behaviour. In addition, some candidates described research focused on genetics or hormones but failed to make any link to the study of the brain. Many responses also focused on ethical considerations, which was not the demand of the question. Critical thinking was often limited and focused on the studies rather than on how the studies could be used to demonstrate insight into human behaviour. Stronger candidates focused on a single behaviour (e.g. memory, depression, aggression) and/or explained relevant human research to show the link to human behaviour.
\nSome research used by candidates was quite complex; however, often candidates did not demonstrate clear understanding of these studies. It is important that research used at this level of study be appropriate for all learners.
\nDiscuss the influence of technology on one or more cognitive processes.
\nRefer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of technology on cognitive processes.
\nTechnology is a broad term that includes the use of computers, the Internet and social media, mobile phones, video games, and virtual reality.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nCandidates may discuss the effect of technology on one cognitive process to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or discuss the effects on more than one cognitive process to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nThere were many strong responses that clearly focused on the influence of technology on cognitive processes. Some candidates failed to identify a cognitive process when explaining research or identified the process as \"academic performance\", \"emotion\" or \"stress.\"
\nStronger candidates made explicit links between the research and models of memory, attention or decision making that is, they explained why technology may have this effect on cognition.
\nSome research was quite complex and was misunderstood by candidates for example, there were many inaccurate explanations of Rosser et al (2007). Although any cognitive process could be discussed, candidates that wrote about perception and attention tended to lack understanding of the cognitive process itself when compared to candidates that focused on memory or decision-making.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the effect of social exclusion on prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that is performed to benefit others, rather than oneself.
\nA person’s feeling of not being part of a social group may affect that person’s behaviour. The hypothesis of this study was that perception of social exclusion would decrease prosocial behaviour.
\nThe convenience sample consisted of psychology university students (N = 26) who signed up for the study to gain course credit. There was an equal number of males and females from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
\nThe participants signed consent forms, but the researchers did not inform participants about the true purpose of the study until afterwards. No participant was named in the research report.
\nIndividually, participants completed a personality test and were paid two dollars, after which they received a randomly assigned personality type description. These allocated them to either condition 1 (social exclusion) or condition 2 (social inclusion). Participants in condition 1 received negative feedback on the personality test such as “You are the type that might end up alone later in life”. Participants in condition 2 received positive feedback such as “You are the type that might have many friends throughout life”.
\nThe researcher then left the room for two minutes, but before leaving she pointed to a box with a sign reading “Student Emergency Fund” and said to the participant that they could donate a small amount of the two dollars if they wanted but it was up to them. After two minutes the researcher returned and debriefed each participant.
\nThe measure of prosocial behaviour in this study was defined as whether the participants gave a donation or not. Only five participants in condition 1 donated, compared to all participants in condition 2.
\nThe researchers concluded that the perception of future social exclusion resulted in temporarily negative emotions that prevented some participants in condition 1 from acting in a prosocial manner.
\nIdentify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
\nDescribe the sampling method used in the study.
\nSuggest one alternative or one additional research method that could be used to investigate the aim of the original study, giving one reason for your choice.
\nAward [1] for identification of correct research method.
\nExperiment (accept also: lab experiment; true experiment)
\nAnswers related to an outline of characteristics of the method may include two of the following characteristics: [1] per relevant point. Maximum of [2].
\nAward [1] for naming the correct sampling method.
\nConvenience sampling (accept also: opportunity sample; volunteer sample; self-selected sample) [1].
\nDescription of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics: Award [1] per relevant point, up to a maximum of [2].
\nDescriptions of the sampling method used in the study could include but are not limited to:
\nAward [1] for naming an alternative or additional research method, and up to [2] for reason with rationale.
\nThe candidate may choose to write about an alternative or additional method. Either approach to answering the question is acceptable. The rationale may differ depending on which is chosen.
\nSuitable alternative or additional research methods could be but are not limited to:
\nFocus group interviews
Focus group interviews with the participants could be used either as a follow-up (additional method) or as an alternative method. Reasons (with rationale) for using a focus-group interview could include but are not limited to:
A semi-structured interview
Reasons (with rationale) for using a semi-structured interview as an alternative/additional method could be but are not limited to:
Stronger candidates identified the research method as a laboratory or true experiment and could refer to characteristics such as manipulation of the IV to measure its effect on the DV, controls, or random allocation of participants to conditions. It was obvious that many used knowledge obtained from their work with IA to answer this question.
\nWeaker candidates suggested research methods such as quasi-experiment, natural experiment, correlational study, field experiment, and even covert observation demonstrating limited knowledge of research methods, or candidates referred to various designs instead of a research method.
\nMost candidates identified the sampling method correctly as it was stated in the stimulus paper and therefore scored at least 1 mark in this question. Stronger candidates were also able to describe various characteristics of the sampling method.
\nEven though the sampling method was explicitly mentioned in the stimulus paper a few candidates suggested other sampling methods. Weaker candidates were not able to describe characteristics of the sampling method but mainly wrote how researchers recruited participants in the study or provided some characteristics of the sample. This approach was awarded 1 mark if the sampling method was correctly identified.
\nIt should be noted that in question 1c it is necessary to focus on a research method that can be used to investigate the same aim as that the original study, whether it is an alternative or an additional method.
\nStronger candidates suggested either a survey or a form of qualitative interview as an additional method and gave a relevant reason with rationale for that choice, for example, having the possibility to collect qualitative data that could give an insight into participants' subjective experience in the actual experiment in order to reveal reasons for their behaviour.
\nSome candidates who had correctly identified the research method as a lab experiment in question 1a just suggested a different experimental design (for example, a field experiment or a natural experiment) as alternative or additional method, which was not accepted.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the effect of social exclusion on prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that is performed to benefit others, rather than oneself.
\nA person’s feeling of not being part of a social group may affect that person’s behaviour. The hypothesis of this study was that perception of social exclusion would decrease prosocial behaviour.
\nThe convenience sample consisted of psychology university students (N = 26) who signed up for the study to gain course credit. There was an equal number of males and females from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
\nThe participants signed consent forms, but the researchers did not inform participants about the true purpose of the study until afterwards. No participant was named in the research report.
\nIndividually, participants completed a personality test and were paid two dollars, after which they received a randomly assigned personality type description. These allocated them to either condition 1 (social exclusion) or condition 2 (social inclusion). Participants in condition 1 received negative feedback on the personality test such as “You are the type that might end up alone later in life”. Participants in condition 2 received positive feedback such as “You are the type that might have many friends throughout life”.
\nThe researcher then left the room for two minutes, but before leaving she pointed to a box with a sign reading “Student Emergency Fund” and said to the participant that they could donate a small amount of the two dollars if they wanted but it was up to them. After two minutes the researcher returned and debriefed each participant.
\nThe measure of prosocial behaviour in this study was defined as whether the participants gave a donation or not. Only five participants in condition 1 donated, compared to all participants in condition 2.
\nThe researchers concluded that the perception of future social exclusion resulted in temporarily negative emotions that prevented some participants in condition 1 from acting in a prosocial manner.
\nDescribe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.
\nDescribe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: Award [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
\nExplain if further ethical considerations could be applied. Award [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
\nThis question was overall well answered, and many candidates scored full marks. Most candidates correctly identified and described consent, confidentiality, and debriefing as applied ethical consideration in the study. For further ethical considerations candidates typically referred to anonymity, confidentiality, and protection from harm. A number of candidates stated that both informed consent and deception were used in the study suggesting that the concept of informed consent is not fully understood. There was also some confusion in relation to anonymity and confidentiality.
\nStronger candidates divided their response according to \"applied ethical considerations\" and \"ethical considerations that could be applied\". Such candidates also provided appropriate explanations related to ethical considerations that could be applied in the study and referred competently to the stimulus paper, for example, giving an explanation of how researchers could protect the participants instead of just listing protection from harm, giving opportunity to contact researchers after the study or providing information of how to get support if needed. Many of these candidates also spotted that light deception was used in the study and explained why it was necessary in this particular study. Such responses mostly said that participants were informed about the true purpose of the study during debriefing, and some suggested that researchers should have asked permission to run the experiment from an ethics committee.
\nWeaker candidates only identified a few relevant ethical considerations and therefore did not earn many marks for this question. A problem for weaker candidates in general was that they did not pay attention to the command term and merely listed ethical considerations, sometimes only in a rudimentary bullet list. Weaker candidates often spent time listing a number of possible psychological problems that participants could experience after the experiment instead of writing about possible ways to avoid causing harm to participants.
\nThe stimulus material below is based on a study on the effect of social exclusion on prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that is performed to benefit others, rather than oneself.
\nA person’s feeling of not being part of a social group may affect that person’s behaviour. The hypothesis of this study was that perception of social exclusion would decrease prosocial behaviour.
\nThe convenience sample consisted of psychology university students (N = 26) who signed up for the study to gain course credit. There was an equal number of males and females from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
\nThe participants signed consent forms, but the researchers did not inform participants about the true purpose of the study until afterwards. No participant was named in the research report.
\nIndividually, participants completed a personality test and were paid two dollars, after which they received a randomly assigned personality type description. These allocated them to either condition 1 (social exclusion) or condition 2 (social inclusion). Participants in condition 1 received negative feedback on the personality test such as “You are the type that might end up alone later in life”. Participants in condition 2 received positive feedback such as “You are the type that might have many friends throughout life”.
\nThe researcher then left the room for two minutes, but before leaving she pointed to a box with a sign reading “Student Emergency Fund” and said to the participant that they could donate a small amount of the two dollars if they wanted but it was up to them. After two minutes the researcher returned and debriefed each participant.
\nThe measure of prosocial behaviour in this study was defined as whether the participants gave a donation or not. Only five participants in condition 1 donated, compared to all participants in condition 2.
\nThe researchers concluded that the perception of future social exclusion resulted in temporarily negative emotions that prevented some participants in condition 1 from acting in a prosocial manner.
\nDiscuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study.
\nRefer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nMarks should be awarded according to the descriptors in the markbands. Each level of the markband corresponds to a range of marks to differentiate candidates' performance. A best-fit approach is used to ascertain which particular mark to use from the possible range for each level descriptor.
\nThe study in the stimulus material is a quantitative study so it is expected that candidates use terminology related to generalization in quantitative research. Use of concepts related to qualitative research such as “theoretical generalisation” and “inferential generalisation” should not be awarded credit.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a review of the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material.
\nDiscussion related to the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material could include but are not limited to:
\nQuestion 3 was the question that appeared most difficult for candidates.
\nMost candidates identified the features in the stimulus material that could be linked to generalization such as the sampling method, sample bias, but there was limited agreement as to whether the result could be generalized or not. Few candidates achieved the top mark band in their responses, and while there were some responses that described accurately the process of generalizing from quantitative research and a convenience sample, they failed to discuss the possibility.
\nStronger answers referred to factors such as generalization from sample to population, selection bias, construct validity, internal/external validity, mundane realism, and the possibility of replicating the study and were able to provide some discussion linked to the question asked.
\nWeaker answers did not often go beyond an explanation of why the sample may or may not be generalizable making reference to the sample itself, for example, arguing that the sample did not represent 'every person in the whole world' or that the sample could be generalized to 'all cultures, all females and males'. Such statements indicate a limited understanding of generalization. Weaker answers often used qualitative concepts and reasoning even though they had identified the research method as quantitative. It seemed that some of these answers relied on pre-learned knowledge but failed to realize that the study was quantitative.
\nDiscuss normality versus abnormality.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of clinical biases in diagnosis.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:
\nResponses are likely to focus on explaining concepts of normality vs. abnormality and on related research. Marks awarded for criterion B should focus on how the responses reflect general knowledge of the topic including definitions of terms, explanations of theories and concepts. Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question.
\nQuestion 1 was handled fairly well by those who took the time to discuss the issue of normality versus abnormality, rather than just citing anecdotal information or research to illustrate a point being made. Critical thinking was a bit uneven, with some candidates using theories or studies to foster a logical argument, while others seemed to cite \"truisms\".
\nTo what extent do sociocultural factors influence the etiology of abnormal psychology?
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors to the etiology of psychological disorders.
\nExamples of sociocultural factors include, but are not limited to:
\nSociocultural factors” is a generic term so only one can be discussed (candidates do not have to address two different sociocultural factors).
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nIt is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and cognitive factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.
\nCandidates may address one sociocultural factor in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of sociocultural factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may discuss the extent to which sociocultural factors influence the etiology of one psychological disorder or may provide a more general response on the extent to which sociocultural factors influence the etiology of several psychological disorders. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nQuestion 2 may have been the most popular on the exam, and was, for the most part, answered well. Most candidates knew what sociocultural factors were, and used research that illustrated their effect within abnormal psychology. Popular examples of sociocultural factors were: poverty and social stress, cultural norms and processes of enculturation and acculturation.
\nHowever, some candidates failed to address the question fully since they attempted to discuss biological factors as their focus.
\nDiscuss the use of one or more psychological treatments for one psychological disorder.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the use of one or more psychological treatments in relation to one psychological disorder. Psychological treatments employ psychological theory to improve or eliminate symptoms of psychological disorders.
\nThe disorder chosen is likely to come from those presented in the guide:
\nPsychological treatments chosen may include, but are not limited to:
\nDescriptions of biological treatments can only be credited if they form part of the critical discussion of psychological ones.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion in relation to the use of the chosen treatment may include, but is not limited to:
\nIf a candidate discusses treatment for more than one psychological disorder, credit should be given only to the part of the response related to the first psychological disorder.
\nQuestion 3 was also popular. Generally candidates stuck to addressing disorders from the guide. CBT tended to be the most discussed treatment. Research was relevant in most cases, and candidates generally discussed the effectiveness of psychological treatment versus more biological treatments.
\nOnly a few candidates made the mistake of confusing biological treatments with psychological ones.
\nDiscuss the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status on human development.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status on human development.
\nCandidates may discuss the influence of poverty/socio-economic status on one specific element of human development or may provide a general response of the influence of poverty/socio-economic status on human development. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nCandidates may address one or a small number of potential effects of poverty/socio-economic status in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge or may address a larger number of potential effects of poverty/socio-economic status in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nQuestion 4 was not extremely popular with candidates, but some did a good job of responding to this. Candidates alternatively discussed malnutrition and/or poverty with relevant research discussed as well. Critical thinking seemed to be a bit weak for this response.
\nEvaluate one or more theories and/or studies relevant to the development of gender identity and/or social roles.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal of one or more theories/studies related to the development of gender identity and/or social roles by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the theories/studies. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.
\nRelevant theories related to gender identity and social roles may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies related to gender identity and social roles may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical evaluation may include but is not limited to:
\nIf 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.
\nFor responses referring to evaluation of studies, marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms, theories and concepts. Overall, this includes knowledge of the specific topic and general knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics (for example definitions of relevant terms in research methodology or ethics in research).
\nMarks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a 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 use of research 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.
\nQuestion 5 was popular within this option. Candidates understood gender schema theory, social learning theory, and social roles. They were aware of relevant research and generally addressed both strengths and limitations within theory and research.
\nDiscuss one or more research methods used to investigate how humans develop as learners.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nCandidates may discuss research methods investigating specific aspects of cognitive/brain development (for example memory, intelligence, language or attention) or discuss research methods investigating cognitive/brain development in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.
\nCandidates may address the different research methods and their application - for example, a covert or naturalistic observation - but the focus should be on the nature of the research method and the reason for using it in the investigation of cognitive behaviour.
\nRelevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:
\nLearning refers to changes in response to environmental stimuli. In developmental psychology research of brain development investigates how changes in the brain structure coincide with changes in certain cognitive functions. If they do coincide, we may infer that there is a link between structure and function.
\nRelevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nA critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nFor questions that ask for discussion of one or more research methods, marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relevant for research methodology. Overall, this includes some knowledge of the specific topic (how humans develop as learners) and general knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics (for example definitions of relevant terms in research methodology or ethics in research).
\nMarks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of a study/studies and assess how well the student linked aspects of the study to the question.
\nQuestion 6 was popular, but not always answered well. Some candidates used research studies to illustrate methods and to discuss those methods in developmental psychology. Others simply discussed one or more theories (such as Piaget or Vygotsky) or related research studies and did not address the question of the methods used in research very well.
\nDiscuss one or more risk and/or protective factors influencing one or more health issues.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of one or more risk and/or protective factors influencing one or more of health issues.
\nThe health issues likely to be presented may come from one or more of the issues in the psychology guide (stress, addiction, obesity, chronic pain, sexual health). Responses referring to mental health issues should not be awarded marks.
\nRisk factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nProtective factors may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant studies may include but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nQuestion 7 was not popular, with few candidates attempting to answer this. Those who responded well to this generally addressed stress, obesity or tobacco, alcohol, or drug usage. A few candidates attempted to use mental health issues rather than issues addressed within the guide for this option.
\nUsing one or more health problems as examples, discuss prevalence rates.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of prevalence rates, using one or more health problems as examples.
\nPrevalence rates refer to the proportion of a population who have a specific characteristic at any given time. Prevalence can be influenced by cultural, gender and lifestyle factors.
\nHealth problems which may be discussed are likely to be one or more of the issues in the psychology guide (stress, addiction, obesity, chronic pain, sexual health). Responses referring to mental health problems should not be awarded marks.
\nRelevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nQuestion 8 was likewise not very popular. Candidates seem to understand prevalence rates, and generally did not refer to mental health issues as much, although that could also be seen. Critical thinking here was fairly limited.
\nDiscuss the effectiveness of one or more health promotion programmes.
\nRefer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.
\nThe command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more health promotion programmes.
\nHealth promotion programmes are an attempt to promote health behaviour. Health promotion programmes are those initiatives designed to assist people in gaining control over and improving their own health. These may be public or a government programmes, or may be privately sponsored. In addition, these programmes may be developed on an individual, local, national, or international level.
\nExamples of health promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:
\nRelevant research may include, but is not limited to:
\nCritical discussion may include, but is not limited to:
\nQuestion 9 was a rather popular question on the exam. Most candidates discussed relevant health promotion programmes, and some just provided anecdotal evidence of programmes that they were aware of. Some health promotion programmes addressed were the following:
\n