pestle/assets/jsonqb/Psychology QB.json

[
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of communication in personal relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of communication in personal relationships.</p>\n<p>Communication 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address specific types of personal relationships (eg romantic, peer, parent–adolescent) or personal relationships in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>Examples of studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fincham’s (2004) study of the role of communication in marital satisfaction</li>\n<li>Gottman and Levenson’s (1986) study on the role of communication of emotions in relationships</li>\n<li>Burgoon <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study of the use of mindfulness and interpersonal communication</li>\n<li>Ying <em>et al</em>.’s (2015) study on parent-adolescent communication to build trust</li>\n<li>Levenson and Gottman’s (1983) study on the relationship between marital dissatisfaction and negative affect</li>\n<li>Tannen's work regarding male/female communication</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in relation to the role of communication in personal relationships</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases in research related to the role of communication in personal relationships</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>alternative theories/explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss prejudice and/or discrimination in relation to group dynamics.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of prejudice and/or discrimination in relation to group dynamics.</p>\n<p>Group dynamics may include in-group dynamics as well as inter-group dynamics.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address topics such as, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stereotypes: negative and positive</li>\n<li>inter-group discrimination</li>\n<li>social identity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sherif’s (1961) Robber’s Cave study</li>\n<li>Steele’s (1997) stereotype threat interferes with school performance</li>\n<li>Tajfel’s (1970) studies in inter-group discrimination</li>\n<li>Pettigrew’s (2013) study on dynamics of inter-group contact.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in relation to research into prejudice/discrimination</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>alternative theories/explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "group-dynamics"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> research methods used in studies investigating social responsibility.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>interviews (<em>eg</em>, semi-structured)</li>\n<li>naturalistic observations</li>\n<li>correlational studies (<em>eg</em> surveys)</li>\n<li>case study</li>\n<li>experiments (laboratory, field or natural)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of research may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Darley &amp; Batson’s (1973) Good Samaritan study (field experiment)</li>\n<li>Levine &amp; Crowther’s (2008) experiment on group size and salient identity in by-standerism</li>\n<li>Graves &amp; Graves’s (1985) observational study into whether caring for young children increases prosocial behaviour</li>\n<li>Barry &amp; Wentzel’s (2006) correlational study of friend influence on prosocial behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>A critical evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s)</li>\n<li>possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method</li>\n<li>the issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the generalizability of findings</li>\n<li>the use of alternative/additional methods (triangulation).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>For 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).</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one</strong> classification system for psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Classification systems for psychological disorders include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) </li>\n<li>The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, World Health Organization, 2018)</li>\n<li>The Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD-3, Chinese Society of Psychiatry, 2001)</li>\n<li>Great Ormond Street Handbook of Paediatrics (2016).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hafstad et al.’s (2017) comparison of ICD-11 and DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis of PTSD</li>\n<li>Andrews et al.’s (1999) comparison of ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses</li>\n<li>Ahmed et al.’s (2018) use of RDoC for depression</li>\n<li>Zheng et al.’s (1994) comparison of CCMD-2 and DSM-III-R systems.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research 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.</p>\n<p>Critical evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>aims and purposes of the system</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>usefulness in research, clinical practice, and primary prevention strategies</li>\n<li>reliability and/or validity of the systems</li>\n<li>comparison with alternative classification systems</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two research methods used in the investigation of the etiology of abnormal psychology.</p>\n<p>Relevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>interviews (e.g. focus group, semi-structured)</li>\n<li>naturalistic observations</li>\n<li>correlational studies (e.g. surveys)</li>\n<li>case study</li>\n<li>experiments.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research that can be used to support the response includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Becker et al.’s (2002) study investigating the influence of television on the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms, using questionnaire data and semi-structured interviews</li>\n<li>Cohn and Adler’s (1987) questionnaire and quasi-experiment investigating body shape preferences</li>\n<li>Kendler et al.’s (2006) correlational study investigating the heritability of depression</li>\n<li>Kendler et al.’s (1991) correlational study into genetic vulnerability in bulimia nervosa</li>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1986) longitudinal survey investigating the relationship between life events and depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s), including strengths and weaknesses of the method(s)</li>\n<li>possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method</li>\n<li>the issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the use of alternative/additional methods (triangulation).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one research method, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>as part of</strong> a chosen research method (not as a method by itself).</p>\n<p>Responses referring to meta-analysis are not acceptable and should not gain marks.</p>\n<p>Responses 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).</p>\n<p>Responses describing and discussing studies but not focusing on research methods should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criteria B and D. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as selected research methods were not valid.</p>\n<p>In high quality responses candidates chose appropriate research methods including:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>interviews (e.g. focus group, semi-structured)</li>\n<li>naturalistic observations</li>\n<li>correlational studies (e.g. surveys)</li>\n<li>case study</li>\n<li>experiments.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Strengths 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).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "etiology-of-abnormal-psychology"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> ethical considerations in relation to the treatment of <strong>one or more</strong> psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of ethical considerations in relation to the treatment of psychological disorders.</p>\n<p>Relevant ethical considerations can include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>effectiveness of treatments</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>validity of diagnosis</li>\n<li>physical and psychological harm caused by treatment</li>\n<li>the expectations of those who are treated and/or worsening of symptoms</li>\n<li>short and long-term side effects of treatments</li>\n<li>the responsibilities of the therapist</li>\n<li>cultural/gender sensitivity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research that can be used to support the discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rossello and Bernal’s (1999) study adapting CBT and IPT for Puerto Rican adolescents</li>\n<li>Aultman’s (2016) case study on psychiatric diagnostic uncertainty in patient-centred care</li>\n<li>Hoop et al.’s (2008) study on ethics and culture in mental healthcare</li>\n<li>Garnets et al.’s (1991) study on issues in psychotherapy in lesbians and gay men.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the considerations of conducting treatment in a different culture</li>\n<li>the use of blind and double-blind research when investigating the effectiveness of treatment, including the use of placebo</li>\n<li>the difficulties of ensuring confidentiality and anonymity</li>\n<li>decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed in research investigating the effectiveness of treatment</li>\n<li>limitations of research investigating effectiveness of specific treatments e.g. the issue of long term effectiveness</li>\n<li>social sensitivity of studies investigating the treatment of psychological disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examiners 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the development of empathy and/or theory of mind.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Research relevant to the development of a theory of mind may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Wellman et al. (2003)</li>\n<li>Flavell, Miller and Miller (1993)</li>\n<li>Wellman and Gelman (1992)</li>\n<li>Wellman (1990).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research relevant to the development of empathy may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Birch (2016)</li>\n<li>Van der Mark et al. (2002)</li>\n<li>Damon and Hart (1992)</li>\n<li>Damon (1988).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant areas of discussion may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the social and cultural influences (e.g. Astington and Gopnik, 1991; Dunn et al., 1991; Harris, 1989)</li>\n<li>the biological influences (e.g. Saxe and Powell, 2006; Gallagher et al., 2003)</li>\n<li>the deficits in social insight, for example in autism spectrum disorders (e.g. Baron-Cohen, 2001; Frith, 1994; Leslie and Frith, 1988)</li>\n<li>the presence or absence of empathy or theory of mind in non-human animals (e.g. Penn and Povinelli, 2007; Heyes, 1998; Premack and Woodruff, 1978).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses referring to animal research are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Responses referring to cognitive development are not acceptable and should not earn marks unless specifically tied to the development of theory of mind/empathy.</p>\n<p>Development 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Very 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-an-identity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> factors that influence the development of resilience.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors that influence the development of resilience.</p>\n<p>Relevant risk/protective factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>connections to competent and caring adults in the family and community</li>\n<li>cognitive skills (such as intelligence and problem-solving)</li>\n<li>self-regulation skills</li>\n<li>positive views of self</li>\n<li>motivation to be effective in the environment</li>\n<li>genetic influence.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Masten and Coatsworth’s (1998); Pettit et al.’s (1997) studies on positive relationships of at least one supportive parent or caregiver</li>\n<li>McRae et al.’s (2012) study on the ability to monitor and assess negative thoughts and replace them with more positive ones</li>\n<li>Karreman and Vingerhoets’s (2012) study on the role of attachment style on resilience</li>\n<li>Ozbay et al.’s (2008) study on the link between seeking social support and resilience</li>\n<li>Leontopoulou’s (2010); Southwick et al.’s (2005) studies on how prosocial behaviour and altruism are associated with resilience</li>\n<li>Russo et al.’s (2012); Feder et al.’s (2009) studies on a range of human genes linked to resilient phenotypes</li>\n<li>Koluchova’s study (1972)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>variable-focused approach vs. person-focused approach in the study of resilience</li>\n<li>implications for promoting resilience in child rearing</li>\n<li>possible gender difference in emotional regulation/cognitive reappraisal</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>alternative factors and/or explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may offer content concerning negative factors influencing the development of resilience - e.g. the impact of poverty, malnutrition or abuse on further development and argue that this has a negative impact on resilience. This approach is acceptable as long as it is clearly linked to the development of resilience.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent is development as a learner influenced by biological factors?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors on development as a learner.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Responses may refer to biological factors including but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development (e.g. Waber, 2007; Giedd, 2004; Chugani et al., 2001)</li>\n<li>the biological maturational component of language acquisition (e.g. Newport, 1990; Pinker, 1989; Chomsky, 1981)</li>\n<li>genetic inheritance in intelligence (e.g. Deary et al., 2006; Bouchard et al., 1990)</li>\n<li>brain damage and memory deficits (e.g. Cowell et al., 2006; Corky, 1997)</li>\n<li>cortisol and memory deficits (e.g. Wolf et al., 2001)</li>\n<li>biological basis of attention (e.g. Ray and Sreedaran, 2015).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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 &amp; 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).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-as-a-learner"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss<strong> one or more</strong> sociocultural factors in promoting health.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of sociocultural factors in promoting health.</p>\n<p>Health 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant sociocultural factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the level of social support (e.g. an individualistic versus collective culture)</li>\n<li>peer-group pressure</li>\n<li>public attitudes toward health issues such as smoking</li>\n<li>body shape attitudes and cultural norms</li>\n<li>the influence of the media on health promotion</li>\n<li>attitudes within a culture toward “fear factors”.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Kreuter and Lukwago’s (2003) study of cultural appropriateness in health promotion programmes</li>\n<li>Wallerstein’s (1992) study on powerlessness and empowerment in health promotion programmes</li>\n<li>Resnicow et al.’s (1999) study on cultural sensitivity in public health</li>\n<li>Kalichman and Coley’s (1995) study on the role of cultural influence on health communication in relation to HIV</li>\n<li>Sepstrup’s (1999) study on the role of media in health promotion.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>social engineering (e.g. laws) versus health promotion programmes</li>\n<li>the effectiveness of health promotion programmes</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>assumptions on which health promotion programmes are based</li>\n<li>alternative contributing factors such as biological/cognitive factors (so long as the main focus is on sociocultural factors).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Responses referring to the influence of sociocultural factors on health issues (e.g. obesity, stress, addiction) are not acceptable and should not be awarded marks.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.</p>\n<p>The biopsychosocial model uses a holistic approach to understanding health and illness that incorporates sociocultural factors, psychological factors, biological factors and individual behaviours.</p>\n<p>The biopsychosocial model includes the following factors:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>biological factors such as genetics, age, sex, nutrition and previous illnesses</li>\n<li>psychological factors, such as health beliefs, habits, health knowledge, coping skills or strategies.</li>\n<li>sociocultural factors such as socio-economic status, peer pressure, family pressure, social norms, social support and availability of health care facilities.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Olson and Strawderman’s (2003) study investigating how the biopsychosocial model predicts gestational weight gain</li>\n<li>Gatchel and Peng et al.’s (2007) review of the biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain</li>\n<li>Alonso’s (2004) study on the biopsychosocial model and the evolution of health concepts</li>\n<li>Hoffman and Driscoll’s (2000) study on health promotion and disease prevention using the biopsychosocial model.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural/gender considerations</li>\n<li>usefulness of application</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>comparison with alternative model (the biomedical model).</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "determinants-of-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> explanations of health problems.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of one or more explanations of health problems.</p>\n<p>The health problem(s) likely to be presented include: stress, addiction, obesity, chronic pain, and/or sexual health.</p>\n<p>Explanations for health problems may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the biopsychosocial model combines biological, psychological, social, and behavioural causes and treatments for health problems</li>\n<li>social and cultural factors involved in determining health and illness</li>\n<li>risk and protective factors in health</li>\n<li>the biomedical model, which focuses primarily on biological factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Steptoe and Marmot’s (2003) survey on the interaction of psychological, social and physiological aspects of stress</li>\n<li>Link and Phelan’s (1995) study on social conditions as fundamental causes of disease</li>\n<li>Bauman et al.’s (1990) correlational study on likelihood of smoking in adolescence where parents also smoke.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in research related to health problems</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases in explanations of health problems</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>comparison of different explanations of specific health problems.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Strengths 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss co-operation and/or competition in groups.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of cooperation and competition in groups.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>realistic conflict theory</li>\n<li>game theory</li>\n<li>social identity theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sherif’s (1961) Robbers Cave study</li>\n<li>Aronson’s (1971) jigsaw classroom</li>\n<li>Beeman and D’Amico’s (1956) study of the effects of co-operation and competition on cohesiveness of small groups</li>\n<li>McCallum, Harring, Gilmore, Drenan, Chase, Insko, and Thibaut’s (1985) study on competition and co-operation between groups and individuals using the Prisoner’s Dilemm</li>\n<li>Tajfel et al. (1971).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of co-operation in strengthening or weakening group cohesion</li>\n<li>effects of co-operation or competition on individual and group performance</li>\n<li>comparison of co-operation and competition in groups</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in research related to co-operation and/or competition in groups</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases in research related to co-operation and/or competition in groups.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "group-dynamics"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating the formation of personal relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more studies investigating the formation of personal relationships.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flora and Segrin’s (2003) study on the perception of the relationship in married and dating couples</li>\n<li>Wedekind’s (1995) experiment on mate preference based on genetic makeup</li>\n<li>Buss et al.’s (1990) cross-cultural factors in attraction (the international mate selection project)</li>\n<li>Gupta and Singh’s (1982) study using interviews on arranged marriages in Indian couples.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural/gender considerations</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>contradictory evidence.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses referring to studies on maintenance, changes, dissolution or end of a relationship are not acceptable and should not be awarded marks.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Examiners occasionally reported that some lower quality responses focused upon maintenance or ending of relationships, rather than formation.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss<strong> one or more</strong> factors influencing by-standerism.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more factors influencing by-standerism.</p>\n<p>Factors influencing by-standerism may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>diffusion of responsibility</li>\n<li>normative social influence (conformity)</li>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>costs/rewards of helping behaviour</li>\n<li>dispositional characteristics.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Latane and Darley’s (1970; 1968) studies of unresponsive by-stander</li>\n<li>Bateson and Darley’s (1973) study on the role of situational and dispositional factors</li>\n<li>Piliavin’s (1969) study of helping behavior and the costs/rewards of helping</li>\n<li>Oliner and Oliner’s (1988) study of dispositional factors in by-standerism.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in the research on by-standerism</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>comparison with alternative factors.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>In 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 <em>per se</em>.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.2.HL.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Outline <strong>one</strong> link between genes and behaviour with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of links between genes and behaviour include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>genes and intelligence (e.g., Bouchard et al., 1990)</li>\n<li>genes and aggression (e.g., Caspi et al., 2002)</li>\n<li>genes and depression (e.g., Caspi et al., 2003, Kendler et al., 2006).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate does not refer to a relevant study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate makes reference to a relevant study without making the connection to the link outlined, award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines more than one example of a link between genes and behaviour, credit should be given only to the first link outlined.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one relevant study, credit should be given only for the first study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ1.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating how <strong>one</strong> bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the aim of the study is linked to a cognitive bias</li>\n<li>a description of the research method used</li>\n<li>description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.</li>\n<li>use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)</li>\n<li>description of the use of triangulation in a case study</li>\n<li>identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required</li>\n<li>controls used by the researcher</li>\n<li>materials used in the study</li>\n<li>the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Anchoring bias: Englisch and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)</li>\n<li>Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) – participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.</li>\n<li>Confirmation bias: Wason (1960), Chapman (1969), Stone(1997), Darley and Gross(1983).</li>\n<li>Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)</li>\n<li>Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)</li>\n<li>Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Swann (1978)</li>\n<li>Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) – participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.</li>\n<li>Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>By 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.  </p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ1.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating acculturation.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating acculturation.</p>\n<p>Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the aim of the study is linked to acculturation</li>\n<li>a description of the research method used</li>\n<li>a description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment</li>\n<li>use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)</li>\n<li>use of correlational design</li>\n<li>identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required</li>\n<li>controls used by the researcher</li>\n<li>materials used in the study</li>\n<li>the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to acculturation. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Lueck and Wilson’s (2010) study on predicting acculturative stress in Asian immigrants and Asian Americans</li>\n<li>Wang et al.’s (2010) study on dimensions on acculturation and positive psychological functioning in Cuban American university students</li>\n<li>Shah et al.’s (2015) study on obesity in South Asian workers in the United Arab Emirates</li>\n<li>Miranda and Matheny’s (2000) study on socio-psychological predictors of acculturative stress among Latino adults</li>\n<li>Berry et al.’s (1987) study on acculturative stress.</li>\n<li>Torres et al. (2012) on the correlation of integration and disorientation in Latino-Americans.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate addresses acculturation but does not describe a relevant study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ1.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-influences-on-individual-attitudes-identity-and-behaviours"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how <strong>one or more</strong> hormones affect human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how one or more hormones affect human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Responses should make a clear link between the function of the hormone(s) and human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant hormones may include, but are not limited to: adrenaline, cortisol, melatonin, testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin.</p>\n<p>Any 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of how hormones influence human behaviour could include, but are not limited to the influence of:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cortisol on recall</li>\n<li>oxytocin on trust and social bonding</li>\n<li>adrenaline on memory</li>\n<li>testosterone on aggression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Possible studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Radke et al.’s (2015) study investigating the effects of testosterone on women’s responses to angry faces</li>\n<li>McGaugh and Cahill’s (1995) study on adrenaline and memory</li>\n<li>Newcomer et al.’s (1999) study on cortisol and memory</li>\n<li>Baumgartner et al.’s (2008) study on the role of oxytocin on trust in economic behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>contradictory evidence or alternative theories/explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses referring to research conducted on animals are acceptable as long as they are linked to human behaviour. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Overall, 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "hormones-and-pheromones-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> studies investigating reconstructive memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Loftus and Pickrell’s (2002) study in creation of false memories</li>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study of eyewitness testimony</li>\n<li>Cann et al.’s (2011) study of false recall in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm</li>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) “War of Ghosts” study of schema processing.</li>\n<li>Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study of the effect of leading questions on eye-witnesses to a real crime.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s) including strengths and limitations of the study/studies</li>\n<li>possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method(s) in the study/studies</li>\n<li>the issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the generalizability of findings</li>\n<li>contradictory findings</li>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>implications and practical applications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>This 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. </p>\n<p>Generic, 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</p>\n<p>Some candidates offered studies on flashbulb memory, which unfortunately were often unable to attract credit as they were not focused on reconstructive memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "reliability-of-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> research methods used to investigate cultural origins of behaviour and/or cultural origins of cognition.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research methods may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>case studies</li>\n<li>correlational studies</li>\n<li>experiments (laboratory, field or natural/quasi)</li>\n<li>interviews</li>\n<li>observations</li>\n<li>meta-analysis.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988); Sagi et al.’s (1985) studies on culture and attachment</li>\n<li>Berry’s (1967) study on culture and conformity</li>\n<li>Lin and Kleinman’s (1988); Parker et al.’s (2001) studies on culture and abnormal behaviour</li>\n<li>Raylu and Oei’s (2004); Brady’s (1995) studies on culture and addictive behaviour</li>\n<li>Cole and Scribner’s (1974); Kearin’s (1981) studies on cultural differences in cognitive skills</li>\n<li>Kulkofsky et al.’s (2011); Rogoff and Waddell’s (1982) studies on culture and memory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the appropriateness of the method for the aim</li>\n<li>the issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the sample choice and size</li>\n<li>the ease and cost of the procedure</li>\n<li>the generalizability of findings</li>\n<li>the strengths and limitations of the research method.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates could use research on acculturation/enculturation, but this had to be explicitly linked to cultural origins of behaviour/cognition.</p>\n<p>Evaluation 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.SL.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-origins-of-behaviour-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour.</p>\n<p>Behaviour 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies on the effects of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Verma and Saraswathi’s (2002) study on bicultural identity that combines local identity with an identity linked to global culture</li>\n<li>Arnett’s (2002) study on identity confusion where people find themselves at home in neither the local culture nor the global culture</li>\n<li>Hermans and Dimaggio’s (2007) study on conceptualization of self in which global and local voices are involved in continuous interchanges and negotiations</li>\n<li>Morris et al.’s (2011) study on the exposure to situations mixing foreign and heritage cultures which may lead to closure response</li>\n<li>Chiu and Cheng’s (2007) study on how simultaneous activation of cultural representations may facilitate creative performance</li>\n<li>Chen et al.’s (2008) study on bicultural identity integration as an important antecedent of beneficial psychological outcomes</li>\n<li>Berry’s (1987) study on acculturative stress.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations such as how the effects of the interaction of local and global influences are measured</li>\n<li>the extent and the limitations of the interaction of local and global influences on behaviour</li>\n<li>to what extent do people develop a bicultural identity with one identity rooted in the local culture and one based in the global culture (acculturation)</li>\n<li>whether identity confusion is related to cultural distance from the global culture</li>\n<li>the importance of studying self on three levels: individual, local and global.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.HL.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-influence-of-globalization-on-individual-attitudes-identities-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, outline the effect of <strong>one</strong> agonist <strong>or one</strong> antagonist on human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of the effect of one agonist or one antagonist on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>An 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies should demonstrate the effect of the chosen agonist or antagonist. Relevant research includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rasmusson and Dadar (1979), Antonova et al. (2011); Rogers and Kesner (2003) – scopolamine and its effects on spatial memory consolidation</li>\n<li>Martinez and Kesner (1991) – physostigmine as an ACh agonist in the consolidation of spatial memory</li>\n<li>Leyton (2013) – alcohol as a dopamine agonist and increased activity in the nucleus accumbens</li>\n<li>Guo et al (2014) – dopamine / Romach et al (1999) – dopamine antagonist</li>\n<li>Crockett et al (2010) – SSRIs as a serotonin agonist in the study of prosocial behaviour</li>\n<li>any study of an effect of a neurotransmitter on human behavior.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate outlines the effect of one agonist or antagonist without reference to a relevant study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses a relevant study but does not outline the effect of one agonist or antagonist, award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Animal 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 <strong>[6]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines the effect of more than one agonist or antagonist, credit should be given only to the first agonist or antagonist.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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)</p>\n<p>Although animal research was acceptable, it needed to be linked to human behaviour. Often, candidates did not make this link effectively.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>The 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 &amp; Kesner (1991). Weaker responses did not explicitly link the use of animal studies to human behaviour, or provided a generic statement concerning the link.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ2.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe<strong> one</strong> study investigating how <strong>one</strong> bias in thinking and decision-making influences human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating biases in thinking and decision-making on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the aim of the study linked to a cognitive bias.</li>\n<li>a description of the research method used</li>\n<li>description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.</li>\n<li>use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)</li>\n<li>description of the use of triangulation in a case study</li>\n<li>identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required</li>\n<li>controls used by the researcher</li>\n<li>materials used in the study</li>\n<li>the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to a bias. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Anchoring bias: Englich and Mussweiler (2001), Tversky and Kahnemann (1974)</li>\n<li>Availability heuristic: Tversky and Kahneman (1973) – participants recalled more famous names than non-famous names as they were more readily 'available' in their memory.</li>\n<li>Confirmation bias: Chapman (1969), Stone (1997), Darley and Gross (1983), Wason (1960).</li>\n<li>Framing effect: Tversky and Kahnemann (1986)</li>\n<li>Halo effect: Dion et al (1972), Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991)</li>\n<li>Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976), Snyder and Schwann (1978),</li>\n<li>Matching bias: Wason (1968), Cox and Griggs (1982) – participants use the language of the rule to choose which cards to turn over.</li>\n<li>Representativeness heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann (1973).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate addresses one bias in thinking and decision-making but does not describe a study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only for the first description. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n<p>Some responses were not focused on thinking and decision-making, but instead described schema theory and memory distortion.</p>\n<p>Two 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ2.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating enculturation.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating enculturation.</p>\n<p>Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the aim of the study linked to enculturation</li>\n<li>a description of the research method used</li>\n<li>description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment.</li>\n<li>use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)</li>\n<li>description of the use of triangulation in a case study</li>\n<li>identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required</li>\n<li>controls used by the researcher</li>\n<li>materials used in the study</li>\n<li>the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to enculturation. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fagot et al. (1974) and Sroufe et al. (1993) on enculturation of gender roles</li>\n<li>Odden and Rochat (2004) on enculturation of fishing, household chores and the hierarchical system in Samoa</li>\n<li>Greenfield (2006) on enculturation of weaving techniques</li>\n<li>Demorest et al (2008)—the influence of enculturation on musical memory</li>\n<li>Kim and Omizo (2006)—enculturation, acculturation and identity</li>\n<li>Keller et al (2008) Verbal interaction of German and Cameroonian mothers with their infants.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate addresses enculturation but does not describe a relevant study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n<p>Descriptions 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.</p>\n<p>Some candidates described research on cultural dimensions but failed to make any clear link to the question of enculturation.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>However, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ2.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-influences-on-individual-attitudes-identity-and-behaviours"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> research methods used when investigating the relationship between the brain and behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Behaviour may include cognitive processes.</p>\n<p>Research methods used when investigating the brain and behaviour include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>true experiments (Crockett et al., 2015; Draganski et al., 2003; Antonova, 2011)</li>\n<li>quasi experiments (Maguire, 2000; Sharot, 2007)</li>\n<li>case studies (HM, Milner, 1966; Tierney et al., 2001).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>As 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).</p>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the ability to determine causality</li>\n<li>the ability to replicate the research and establish reliability</li>\n<li>ecological validity</li>\n<li>ethical considerations in the use of deception</li>\n<li>holistic vs reductionist approaches to the study of behaviour</li>\n<li>internal validity – the ability to control for extraneous variables through double-blind techniques, random allocation, placebo groups</li>\n<li>potential generalizability of findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss schema theory in relation to cognitive processing.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” asks candidates to offer a considered review of how schema theory contributes to an understanding of cognitive processing.</p>\n<p>Psychological studies investigating schema theory include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Anderson and Pichert’s (1978) study on the effect of schema processing on memory encoding and retrieval</li>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) schema processing as part of reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study on reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>Brewer and Treyens’s (1981) study on the role of office schemas on recall</li>\n<li>Bransford and Johnson’s (1972) study on contextual conditions for encoding and recall.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>applications of schema theory – for example, CBT. It is a robust theory that has many applications across many fields of psychology</li>\n<li>implications of the findings in our understanding of cognitive processing</li>\n<li>the inability to observe schema: Cohen (1993) argued that the concept of schema is too vague and hypothetical to be useful</li>\n<li>methodological considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.BP.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> ethical considerations related to research studies investigating cultural origins of behaviour and/or cultural origins of cognition.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Ethical 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>protection from physical and/or mental harm</li>\n<li>briefing and debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw from a study</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>anonymity</li>\n<li>confidentiality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Studies on conformity – Bond and Smith (1996), Berry and Katz (1967)</li>\n<li>Studies on cultural dimensions – Hofstede (1973), Finkelstein (2010), Eylon and Au (1999), Kulkofsky et al. (2011), Petrova et al. (2007), Levine and Norenzayan (1996), Chen et al. (2005)</li>\n<li>Studies on culture and attachment – Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988); Sagi et al. (1985)</li>\n<li>Studies on culture and addictive behaviour – Raylu and Oei (2004); Brady (1995)</li>\n<li>Studies on cultural origins of cognition – Williams and Williams (2010), Lamm et al. (2017)</li>\n<li>Studies on cultural differences in cognitive skills – Vygotsky (1978), Cole and Scribner (1974), Chiu (1972); Briley, Morris and Simonson (2005)</li>\n<li>Studies on cultural demands and memory – Bartlett (1932), Misty and Rogoff (1994), Rogoff and Waddell (1982).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the considerations of conducting research in a different culture</li>\n<li>the justification of how ethical considerations were resolved – for example, why was deception used?</li>\n<li>how ethical considerations may limit the ability to carry out research</li>\n<li>using a cost/benefit analysis when undertaking research</li>\n<li>the difficulties of ensuring confidentiality in social psychology research</li>\n<li>the role of informed consent when studying groups</li>\n<li>decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed</li>\n<li>changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Of 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.SL.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-origins-of-behaviour-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does globalization influence behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"to what extent\" requires candidates to consider the influence of globalization on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Behaviour in this instance may include attitudes, identities or any other accepted behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adams (2003) on cultural values in the USA and Canada converging over time</li>\n<li>Buchan et al. (2009) on globalization and cooperation</li>\n<li>Gupta’s (2011) research on the effect of globalization in consumer behaviour</li>\n<li>Jensen, Arnett and McKenzie’s (2011) research on globalization and cultural identity, which explains that globalization has fostered the occurrence of a new period of life, <em>emerging adulthood</em>, related to issues of identity</li>\n<li>Ogihara and Uchida (2014) on the effects of globalization on subjective well-being</li>\n<li>Norasakkunkit and Uchida (2014); Becker et al. (2002) on the effects of globalization on mental health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>To address the “to what extent” command term, appropriate strategies may include, but are not limited to: </p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological difficulties in measuring and testing the effect of globalization.</li>\n<li>the inability to establish a cause and effect relationship</li>\n<li>studies of the effects of globalization are relatively recent and often have not been replicated</li>\n<li>the difficulty of generalizing the findings of globalization research</li>\n<li>the reliance on self-reported data is open to demand characteristics.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21M.1.HL.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-influence-of-globalization-on-individual-attitudes-identities-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Outline neural pruning with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of neural pruning with reference to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Draganski <em>et al.</em>’s (2004) study investigating the effects of learning juggling on the brain after training and after a period of latency</li>\n<li>Bremner <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study investigating hippocampal atrophy in PTSD</li>\n<li>Maguire <em>et al.</em>’s (2000) study suggesting pruning in the anterior hippocampus of experienced taxi drivers</li>\n<li>Squeglia <em>et al.</em>’s (2013) study suggesting a negative correlation between cortical thickness in the frontal lobe and age.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>An outline of the concept of neural pruning may include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of long-term potentiation</li>\n<li>the development of children’s brains</li>\n<li>a decrease in dendritic branching leading to a decrease in synaptic connections</li>\n<li>neuronal cell death.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines neural pruning without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without outlining neural pruning, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>The response must make a link between neural pruning and the chosen study; however, a link between the study and human behaviour is not required.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Top 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.</p>\n<p>Low band responses outlined only neuroplasticity or described neurotransmission without mentioning neural pruning.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe schema theory, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of schema theory, with reference to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Candidates may refer to relevant aspects of schema theory such as, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>mental representation</li>\n<li>framework of knowledge</li>\n<li>assimilation and accommodation (Piaget)</li>\n<li>the role of past experience</li>\n<li>reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>schema types</li>\n<li>the role of schema in the encoding and retrievel of memory</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) study of “War of the Ghosts”</li>\n<li>Anderson &amp; Pichert’s (1978) study on schema theory and memory retrieval</li>\n<li>Brewer &amp; Treyens’ (1981) study of potential effects of schema on memory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes schema theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing schema theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates performed inconsistently on this question. There seemed to be a general understanding of schema, but its relevance in the cognitive process wasn't grasped.</p>\n<p>There were often some inaccurate claims of the role of schema in cognitive processes such as thinking and decision-making.<br/>Relevant studies such as Bransford and Johnson, Brewer and Treyens, Cohen et al. were described.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Outline the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Appropriate topics may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>conformity (Berry, 1967)</li>\n<li>attachment (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg, 1988)</li>\n<li>aggression in honour cultures (Cohen, 1996)</li>\n<li>abnormal behaviour (Lin and Kleinman, 1988)</li>\n<li>addictive behaviour (Raylu and Oei, 2004)</li>\n<li>memory encoding and recall strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without outlining the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>However, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-origins-of-behaviour-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how <strong>one or more</strong> hormones <strong>and/or one or more</strong> pheromones affect human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of how one or more hormones and/or one or more pheromones affect behaviour.</p>\n<p>The effect of hormones/pheromones may be discussed in relation to any type of behaviour such as, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>attraction</li>\n<li>aggression</li>\n<li>trust</li>\n<li>emotional response</li>\n<li>attachment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Lundstrom and Olsson’s (2005) study on effects of androstadienone on women's attraction to men</li>\n<li>Wedekind et al. (1995) investigating mate preference based on genetic makeup in relation to immune system functioning</li>\n<li>Doucet's <em>et al.</em>’s (2009) study on maternal behaviour</li>\n<li>Saxton <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) study on how androstadienone modulates women's attributions of men's attractiveness.</li>\n<li>Radke <em>et al.</em>’s (2015) study investigating the effects of testosterone on women’s responses to angry faces</li>\n<li>Wagels <em>et al.</em>’s (2017) study showing that testosterone reduced desired personal distance from aggressive humans</li>\n<li>Albert <em>et al.</em>’s (1986) Testosterone and aggression in mice</li>\n<li>Baumgartner <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) study on the role of oxytocin on trust in economic behaviour</li>\n<li>McGaugh and Cahill’s study on adrenaline and flashbulb memory</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research investigating how hormones and/or pheromones affect human behaviour including the ambiguity of research evidence</li>\n<li>to what extent pheromones have an effect on human behaviour</li>\n<li>how the findings of the research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>the value of animal research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Animal 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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Pheromones 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.</p>\n<p>Very few responses used neurotransmitters instead of hormones, obtaining lower marks as a result.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.SL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "hormones-and-pheromones-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Cognitive processes may include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>attention</li>\n<li>language</li>\n<li>memory</li>\n<li>perception</li>\n<li>thinking and decision-making</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of a cognitive process may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the value of a model or theory</li>\n<li>reliability of a cognitive process</li>\n<li>effects of culture</li>\n<li>effects of biological factors</li>\n<li>effects of environmental factors and stress</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the cognitive process.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process discussed.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>An impressive range of knowledge about cognitive processes was displayed in this question.</p>\n<p>Strong 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.</p>\n<p>On 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.</p>\n<p>Low band responses were primarily descriptive and didn't address any discussion points.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> ethical considerations related to research studies investigating individuals and groups.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more ethical considerations related to research studies investigating individuals and groups.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>protection from undue stress or harm</li>\n<li>briefing and debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>anonymity</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies investigating individuals and groups may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Festinger’s (1956) study on cult behaviour</li>\n<li>Sherif’s (1954) “Robbers Cave” study investigating the realistic conflict theory</li>\n<li>Zimbardo’s (1961) Stanford Prison Experiment</li>\n<li>Milgram’s (1961) study of obedience</li>\n<li>Bandura’s (1961) study of aggression</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why deception is used</li>\n<li>the difficulties of ensuring confidentiality in social psychology research</li>\n<li>the role of informed consent when studying groups</li>\n<li>decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed</li>\n<li>changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Very 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.</p>\n<p>Low 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "discuss-ethical-considerations-in-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics and behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cases <em>et al.</em> (1995); Mosienko <em>et al.</em> (2012), Van Oortmerssen and Bakker ‘s (1981) studies of aggression in mice</li>\n<li>Farooqi and Rahilly (2006); Friedman (1950) studies of obesity in rats</li>\n<li>Shmelkov <em>et al.</em>’s (2010) study of OCD in mice</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>potential differences between humans and animals</li>\n<li>the strengths and limitations of a reductionist approach</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>construct validity with regard to the behaviour studied and the question of anthropomorphism</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations of the study or studies, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Some candidates argued that we cannot learn anything from animal models. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of their potential value in understanding behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.1.HL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-role-of-animal-research-in-understanding-human-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss validity <strong>and/or</strong> reliability of diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that addresses various aspects of validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.</p>\n<p>Relevant classification systems in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)</li>\n<li>Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD)</li>\n<li>International Classification of Diseases (ICD).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Nicholls <em>et al.</em>’s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability</li>\n<li>Seeman’s (2007) literature review on the reliability of diagnosis</li>\n<li>Wakefield <em>et al.</em>’s (2007) study on the validity of diagnosis</li>\n<li>Silverman <em>et al.</em>’s (2001) study on test-retest of anxiety symptoms and diagnosis</li>\n<li>Rosenhan’s studies of diagnostic validity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological difficulties of conducting research on validity and/or reliability of diagnosis</li>\n<li>cultural, gender and/or ethical considerations related to research into validity and/or reliability of diagnosis</li>\n<li>biases related to diagnosis</li>\n<li>how the findings of the research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "concepts-and-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> explanations for <strong>one</strong> psychological disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The disorder chosen is likely to come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Explanations for psychological disorders may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Biological explanations, such as neurological/neurochemical explanations for depression, the role of genes, or the role of brain abnormalities</li>\n<li>Cognitive explanations, such as Beck’s theory of depression</li>\n<li>Sociocultural explanations, such as Brown and Harris’s social vulnerability model.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1978) study on vulnerability to depression</li>\n<li>Caspi <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study on genes and depression</li>\n<li>Gilbertson <em>et al.</em>’s (2002) study on the hippocampus and PTSD in veterans</li>\n<li>Hitchcock <em>et al.</em>’s (2015) study on cognitive appraisal in post-traumatic stress.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to research into psychological disorders</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>contrasting explanations</li>\n<li>the productivity of the explanation in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>implications of findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "psychological-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies related to the treatment of <strong>one or more</strong> psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The disorder chosen is likely to come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rossello and Bernal’s (1999) study adapting cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for Puerto Rican adolescents</li>\n<li>Mason and Hargreaves’ (2001) qualitative interviews regarding effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)</li>\n<li>McLay <em>et al.</em>’s (2011) assessment of the effectiveness of virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) for post-traumatic stress disorder</li>\n<li>Kuyken <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) randomized control trial of MBCT and anti-depressive medication </li>\n<li>Caspi <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study on treatment of depression</li>\n<li>Luty <em>et al.</em>’s (2007) randomized control trial of IPT and CBT</li>\n<li>Elkin <em>et al.</em>’s (1989) controlled outcome study on treatment of depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>how the findings have been interpreted and applied.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this 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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do sociocultural factors influence the development of identity?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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\".</p>\n<p>Sociocultural factors influencing identity development may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>family influences on identity development</li>\n<li>the role of culture in identity development</li>\n<li>the ethnic aspect of identity development</li>\n<li>gender and identity development</li>\n<li>social class and identity development</li>\n<li>social identity and identity development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Marcia (1980) family influences on identity development in adolescence</li>\n<li>Erikson’s (1968) research on culture, race, ethnicity and identity</li>\n<li>Phinney’s (1989) study on ethnic identities of minority groups</li>\n<li>Gilligan (1990) study on gender and identity development</li>\n<li>Tajfel and Turner (1979) research on social identity and identity development</li>\n<li>Gee and Crawford (1998) research on language, social class and identity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-influences-on-individual-attitudes-identity-and-behaviours"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> theories of cognitive development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piaget's theory of cognitive development</li>\n<li>Vygotsky's theory of sociocultural cognition</li>\n<li>Kohlberg's theory of moral development</li>\n<li>Bruner's theory suggesting that thinking is the result of cognitive development</li>\n<li>the information-processing approach to cognitive development</li>\n<li>neurobiological explanations of cognitive development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piaget and Inhelder's (1956) three mountain study</li>\n<li>Bower and Wishart's (1977) study on object permanence</li>\n<li>Samuel and Bryant's (1984) study on conservation experiment</li>\n<li>Chi's (1978) study on processing skills</li>\n<li>Waber's (1987); Giedd's (2004) MRI studies on normal brain development</li>\n<li>Saxe <em>et al.</em>'s (1987) study on the zone of proximal development</li>\n<li>Wood <em>et al.</em>'s (1976) study on the role of tutoring in problem solving.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into cognitive development</li>\n<li>stages versus continuous process</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative theories/explanations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>practical applications.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Was 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of peers <strong>and/or</strong> play in cognitive development <strong>and/or</strong> social development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of peers and/or play in cognitive and/or social development.</p>\n<p>Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the influence of different categories of play on cognitive and/or social development</li>\n<li>the therapeutic value of play</li>\n<li>Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories related to play and cognitive development</li>\n<li>the link between cognitive development and peer relationships</li>\n<li>the link between peer relationships and social comparison</li>\n<li>cultural differences in peer relationships.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hughes’ (1999) study on learning social skills through role play</li>\n<li>Russ's (2004) study of a child's capacity for cognitive flexibility and creativity developed by role play</li>\n<li>Todd <em>et al.</em>'s (2016); Fagot's (1985) studies on gender-specific toys</li>\n<li>Bradbard <em>et al.</em>'s (1986) study on the influence of sex stereotypes on children's exploration and memory</li>\n<li>Albert <em>et al.</em>'s (2013) study on peer influences in adolescent decision-making</li>\n<li>Newcomb and Bentler’s (1988) study showing how positive relationships are important in reducing adolescent's drug use</li>\n<li>Kupersmidt and Coie's (1990) studies on peer rejection as predictor of externalizing problems in adolescence.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the role of peers and play in cognitive and/or social development</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied (e.g. designing physical education courses for different ages of children)</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations addressing cognitive and/or social development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies related to health promotion.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies related to health promotion may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rosenstock <em>et al.</em>’s (1988) study related to the Health Belief Model</li>\n<li>Prochaska and Di Clemente’s (1983) processes of change study related to the Transtheoretical Model</li>\n<li>Marlatt and Gordon’s (1985) study related to the Relapse-Prevention Model</li>\n<li>Weinstein’s (1987) study on unrealistic optimism hindering health promotion.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this 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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Few 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how risk <strong>and/or</strong> protective factors affect health.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Aspects of health likely to be addressed are:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Risk/protective factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>socioeconomic factors</li>\n<li>level of peer support</li>\n<li>family factors</li>\n<li>health beliefs</li>\n<li>resiliency traits.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Unger and Chen’s (1999) study in risk and protective factors related to adolescent smoking initiation</li>\n<li>Haines, Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, and Story’s (2012) study of risk and protective factors of adolescent weight gain</li>\n<li>Yi, Poudel, and Yasouka’s (2010) study of the role of risk and protective factors in risky sexual behaviours in Cambodian high school students.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into risk and/or protective factors of health</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>theoretical issues</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "determinants-of-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> explanations of health problems.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Explanations of health problems may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>brain's reward pathway explanation of addiction</li>\n<li>genetic vulnerability to addiction</li>\n<li>theory of planned behavior addressing the role of decision making in addiction</li>\n<li>sociocultural explanations of obesity</li>\n<li>General Adaptation Syndrome model as explanation of stress.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Newton and De La Graza (2009) study in theory of addiction</li>\n<li>Hammer, Dingle, Ostergren and Partridge (2013) study challenging the biomedical model of addiction</li>\n<li>Reed <em>et al.</em>’s (1999) study of pessimism within AIDS patients</li>\n<li>Kamen and Seligman’s (1987) study of attributional style and health level</li>\n<li>Stunkard <em>et al.</em>’s (1990) study of genetic factors in obesity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in research related to investigating the explanations</li>\n<li>cultural factors and gender considerations in research related to investigating the explanations</li>\n<li>supporting or contradictory empirical evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations</li>\n<li>accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>the application of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>the productivity of the explanation in generating psychological research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> marks for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the formation of personal relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the formation of personal relationships.</p>\n<p>Candidates may refer to issues including, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>explanations of formation of personal relationships (learning, cognitive, evolutionary, economic, cultural)</li>\n<li>studies on formation of personal relationships</li>\n<li>research methods investigating the formation of personal relationship</li>\n<li>factors influencing the formation of personal relationship</li>\n<li>gender/cultural differences related to formation of personal relationships</li>\n<li>attraction and/or liking can also be addressed as long they are tied to formation of relationships.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flora and Segrin’s (2003) study on the perception of the relationship in married and dating couples</li>\n<li>Wedekind’s (1995) experiment on mate preference based on genetic makeup</li>\n<li>Fisher <em>et al.</em>’s (2005) fMRI investigation into neural mechanisms of mate choice</li>\n<li>Johnston <em>et al.</em>’s (2001) experiments investigating the importance of a woman’s hormonal state on the attractiveness of men’s faces</li>\n<li>Buss <em>et al.</em>’s (1989) cross-cultural study on factors in attraction</li>\n<li>Morry’s (2005) investigation into the attraction-similarity hypothesis</li>\n<li>Gupta and Singh’s (1982) study using interviews on arranged marriages in Indian couples.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the formation of personal relationships</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating origins of conflict <strong>and/or</strong> conflict resolution.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Topics investigating origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Realistic group conflict theory</li>\n<li>Social identity theory</li>\n<li>Group polarization</li>\n<li>Intergroup contact theory</li>\n<li>Social cognitive theory and Sabido method</li>\n<li>Jigsaw classroom example of cooperative learning.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sherif <em>et al.</em>’s (1961) field experiment on competition and conflict resolution between groups</li>\n<li>Chambers and De Dreu’s (2014) study on conflict and negotiation</li>\n<li>Sternberg and Dobson’s (1987) study on resolution of interpersonal conflicts</li>\n<li>Sternberg and Soriano’s (1984) study on styles of conflict resolution.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this 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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "violence"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating social responsibility.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The topic of social responsibility may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>prosocial behavior</li>\n<li>atruistic behavior</li>\n<li>bystanderism</li>\n<li>strategies of promoting prosocial behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whiting &amp; Whiting (1975) study comparing prosocial behaviour in six cultures</li>\n<li>Miller <em>et al.</em>’s (1990) study on cultural norms and moral values related to social responsibility</li>\n<li>DeWall <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) study investigating differences in helping behaviour towards family versus strangers and the roles of ego depletion and glucose.</li>\n<li>Burnstein <em>et al.</em>’s (1994) study on hypothetical helping behaviour towards different degrees of relatives.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this 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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "21N.2.HL.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> effect of <strong>one</strong> hormone on behaviour, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one effect of one hormone on behaviour, with reference to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Any 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.</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Radke <em>et al.</em>’s (2015) study investigating the effect of testosterone on women’s responses to angry faces</li>\n<li>McGaugh and Cahill’s (1995) study on the effect of adrenaline in memories linked to emotional arousal</li>\n<li>Newcomer <em>et al.</em>’s (1999) study on cortisol and memory</li>\n<li>Baumgartner <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) study on the effect of oxytocin on trust in economic behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes the effect of one hormone without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing the effect of the hormone, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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).</p>\n<p>Overall 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.</p>\n<p>HL: </p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Unfortunately 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.</p>\n<p>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. In such cases there was inevitably no more than a passing reference to how the findings could be related to human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ1.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "hormones-and-pheromones-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> ethical consideration related to <strong>one</strong> relevant study from the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>protection of participants</li>\n<li>issues of consent/assent</li>\n<li>debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw from a study</li>\n<li>use of deception</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>confidentiality</li>\n<li>anonymity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies related to the cognitive approach may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brewer and Treyens’ (1981) use of deception in the study of the effect of schemas on memory</li>\n<li>Schacter and Singer’s (1962) use of deception in the study of the two-factor theory of emotion</li>\n<li>Corkin <em>et al.</em> (1997) and lack of informed consent in the study of HM’s brain lesion in relation to memory</li>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) use of deception in the study of reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>Sharot <em>et al.</em> (2007) and protection from harm in the study of how emotion may affect memory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one ethical consideration credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes one ethical consideration without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes a relevant study without describing one ethical consideration, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n<p>Overall 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.</p>\n<p>HL: </p>\n<p>A 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, .</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ1.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluate-one-or-more-studies-on-the-influence-of-emotion-on-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe social cognitive theory, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social cognitive theory in relation to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>The main concepts of social cognitive theory may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>imitation (for example, of role models)</li>\n<li>vicarious learning</li>\n<li>the role of attention, retention, motivation and reproduction</li>\n<li>self-efficacy</li>\n<li>reciprocal determinism.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bandura <em>et al.</em>’s (1961) study on observational learning and aggression in children</li>\n<li>Joy, Kimball and Zabrack’s (1986) study on the impact of television on children’s aggressive behaviour</li>\n<li>Totten’s (2003) study on modelling of violent behaviour towards girlfriends</li>\n<li>Sprafkin <em>et al.’</em>s (1975) study on children’s prosocial behaviour and television</li>\n<li>Fagot <em>et al.</em>’s (1992) study on parental influences on gender development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes social cognitive theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing social cognitive theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>Several 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.</p>\n<p>Overall 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.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ1.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluate-one-or-more-studies-on-the-influence-of-emotion-on-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the relationship between genetics and behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the relationship between genetics and behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant areas of the relationship between genetics and behaviour may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>mental health</li>\n<li>intelligence</li>\n<li>aggression</li>\n<li>personality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bouchard <em>et al.</em>’s (1990) reports on the “Minnesota Twin Studies”</li>\n<li>Plomin and Petrill’s (1997) research into the heritability of IQ in twin and adoption studies</li>\n<li>Kendler <em>et al.</em>’s (2006) twin study on genetics and depression.</li>\n<li>Caspi <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study on genes and depression</li>\n<li>Weissman <em>et al.</em>’s (2005) longitudinal family study on depression.</li>\n<li>Gilbertson <em>et al.</em>’s (2002) study on PTSD in veterans.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to research into the relationship between genetics and behaviour</li>\n<li>how the research findings have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the research findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>In 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. </p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> cultural dimension of human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one cultural dimension of human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Cultural dimensions may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>individualism/collectivism (e.g. Berry and Katz,1967; Kulkofsky <em>et al.</em>, 2011; Wei <em>et al.</em>, 2001)</li>\n<li>power/distance (e.g. Zhang <em>et al.</em>, 2010; Eylon and Au, 1999; Lynn <em>et al.</em>, 1993)</li>\n<li>long-term/short-term orientation (Confucian dynamism) (e.g. Chen <em>et al.</em>, 2005; Hofstede and Bond, 1988)</li>\n<li>masculinity/femininity (e.g. Vunderick and Hofstede, 1998)</li>\n<li>uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Shane, 1995).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological related to the research into cultural dimensions</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first cultural dimension discussed.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Clear 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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).</p>\n<p>The weakest responses were often entirely anecdotal, with no reference to psychological terminology or studies.</p>\n<p>Overall 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.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one</strong> method used to study the interaction between technology and cognitive processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Although the discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.</p>\n<p>Relevant methods may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>experimental method</li>\n<li>correlational studies</li>\n<li>surveys.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mueller and Openheimer’s (2014) experiment on the use of laptops versus paper in note-taking by college students</li>\n<li>Chou and Edges’s (2012) use of a survey in the study of the availability heuristic in thinking</li>\n<li>Rosen <em>et al.</em>’s (2013) correlational study on the influence of induced multi-tasking on cognitive processes</li>\n<li>Sparrow <em>et al.</em>’s (2011) experiments on transactive memory and digital amnesia.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the method may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the appropriateness of the methods for the aim</li>\n<li>issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>sample choice and size</li>\n<li>ease and cost of the procedure</li>\n<li>the generalizability of findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.HL.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss reconstructive memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of reconstructive memory.</p>\n<p>Description of the nature of reconstructive memory could include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>confabulation—a memory based on a fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memory, often believed to be true in spite of contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>schema processing—memory processing based on prior knowledge in the form of schemas that could result in distortion</li>\n<li>false memories—recalling an event that never happened and believing it to be true.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study into reconstructive memory (automobile study)</li>\n<li>Riniolo <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study in accuracy of eyewitness testimony</li>\n<li>Miller and Gazzaniga’s (1998) study on creating false memories from visual scenes</li>\n<li>Allport and Postman’s (1947) study in reconstructive memory for imagery</li>\n<li>Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study of real life eye-witnesses</li>\n<li>Bartlett's (1932) war of the ghosts study.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>factors related to the false creation of memory</li>\n<li>methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research into reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence applications of the research.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Common 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.SL.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "reliability-of-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe neuroplasticity, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of neuroplasticity with reference to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Descriptions 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.</p>\n<p>When describing the study, the relevant area of the brain where neuroplasticity is observed should be identified.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bremner <em>et al.</em>’s (2008) study on plasticity of the human brain in post-traumatic stress disorder</li>\n<li>Draganski’s (2004) study of neuroplasticity and learning in jugglers</li>\n<li>Luby <em>et al.</em>’s (2012) study of maternal support and hippocampal development</li>\n<li>Maguire <em>et al.</em>’s (2000) study showing structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers</li>\n<li>Rosenzweig, Bennett and Diamond’s (1972) study on the role of environmental factors on neuroplasticity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes neuroplasticity related to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>As 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes neuroplasticity without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing neuroplasticity, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>Research was well described but often the findings were not clearly stated or lacked precision with regard to the actual changes in the brain.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ2.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> model of memory, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one model of memory.</p>\n<p>Relevant models of memory may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flashbulb memory theory</li>\n<li>Levels of processing</li>\n<li>Multi-store model of memory</li>\n<li>Schema theory</li>\n<li>Working memory model</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) studies on the evidence of working memory</li>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) study of the role of schema on memory storage</li>\n<li>Brown and Kulik’s (1977) study of flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>Craik and Lockhart’s (1975) study of the levels of processing model</li>\n<li>Peterson and Peterson (1959) on the role of rehearsal and memory consolidation</li>\n<li>Murdock’s (1962) or Glanzer &amp; Cunitz’s (1966) studies on the serial position effect</li>\n<li>Studies of brain damage to support the theory: Milner’s (1966) study of HM; Warrington and Shallice’s (1974) study of KF.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Although it is acceptable for candidates to include a drawing of the model, the written description of the model is assessed on its own merits.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes one model of memory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing a model of memory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ2.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe social identity theory, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Responses should identify the key concepts of SIT which include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social categorization (in-group/out-group)</li>\n<li>social identification</li>\n<li>social comparison.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies related to social identity theory may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Abrams’s (1990) study on the role of social identity on levels of conformity</li>\n<li>Cialdini <em>et al.</em>’s (1976) \"Basking in Reflected Glory\" study</li>\n<li>Drury <em>et al.</em>’s (2009) study of helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Levine’s (2005) study of helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities</li>\n<li>Sherif <em>et al.</em>’s (1961) \"Robbers Cave\" study</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes social identity theory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing social identity theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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. </p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Many candidates described Tajfel's (1970) study; however, some candidates struggled to clearly and accurately outline the procedure and findings of the study.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ2.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one</strong> technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Brain imaging techniques may include, but are not limited to: CT scans, EEG, fMRI, MRI, PET.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Corkin’s (1997) MRI of patient HM</li>\n<li>Eisenberger <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) study of rejection using an fMRI</li>\n<li>Fisher, Aron and Brown’s (2005) study using fMRI to investigate dopamine and love.</li>\n<li>Harris and Fiske’s (2006) study of response to out-groups using fMRI</li>\n<li>Maguire’s (2000) study of hippocampal neuroplasticity in taxi drivers using MRI</li>\n<li>Raine <em>et al.</em>’s (1997) study of murderers using PET</li>\n<li>Sharot <em>et al.</em>’s (2007) study of flashbulb memories using fMRI.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>ecological validity versus internal validity</li>\n<li>generally small sample sizes</li>\n<li>how brain imaging has changed the way we study the brain – e.g. improved ethical standards</li>\n<li>invasive elements of some techniques</li>\n<li>limitations of correlational research</li>\n<li>researcher biases in the interpretation of brain scans</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate evaluates more than one technique, credit should be given only to the first technique evaluated.</p>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>There 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. </p>\n<p>Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Strong responses demonstrated understanding of how the technology works and/or how the data is interpreted (for example, pixel counting, voxel-based morphometry (VBM)).</p>\n<p>Strong 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> cultural influences on human cognition and/or behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more cultural influences on human cognition and/or behaviour.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between cognition and behaviour.</p>\n<p>Studies investigating cultural influences on cognition and/or behaviour may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>acculturation (Lueck and Wilson, 2010; Kraeh <em>et al.</em>, 2016; Torres <em>et al.</em>, 2012)</li>\n<li>attachment (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg, 1988; Sagi <em>et al.</em>, 1985)</li>\n<li>conformity (Bond and Smith, 1996; Berry, 1967)</li>\n<li>cultural norms (Odden and Rochat, 2004; Fagot, 1974)</li>\n<li>flashbulb memories (Kulkofsky <em>et al.</em>, 2011)</li>\n<li>The effects of education on memory (Cole and Scribner, 1974; Kearins, 1981)</li>\n<li>Pro-social behaviour (Moghaddam <em>et al.</em>, 1993; Levine <em>et al.</em>, 2001)</li>\n<li>Cognitive development (Li <em>et al.</em>, 1999)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>ecological versus internal validity</li>\n<li>use of quasi-experimental research</li>\n<li>sampling biases and the ecological fallacy</li>\n<li>lab versus field experiments</li>\n<li>operationalization of “culture” as a construct</li>\n<li>emic versus etic approaches to studying cultural influences</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>SL:</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker responses described irrelevant research such as Asch's studies into conformity, Bandura's Bobo doll study or anecdotal evidence in support of their answer.</p>\n<p>Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.</p>\n<p>HL:</p>\n<p>There were mainly strong responses to this essay, focusing on the role of cultural dimensions, cultural norms, and acculturation on behaviour and/or cognition.</p>\n<p>When 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.</p>\n<p>Critical 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.BP.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> studies of the positive and/or negative effects of technologies on cognitive processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bavelier <em>et al.</em> (2011), Small <em>et al.</em> (2011) on decision-making</li>\n<li>Blacker <em>et al.</em> (2014), McAvinue <em>et al.</em> (2013), and Pei-Chi Ho, Szu-Ming Chung and Yi-Hua Lin’s (2012) studies on video games and working memory</li>\n<li>Kaspersky Lab (2015) on digital amnesia</li>\n<li>Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) and Hembrooke and Gay’s (2003) studies on the role of laptops in memory</li>\n<li>Rosen <em>et al.</em>’s (2011) study on digital distraction and memory</li>\n<li>Sparrow (2011) on the Google effect.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>ecological versus internal validity</li>\n<li>implications of the research</li>\n<li>the measurement of cognitive processes</li>\n<li>the recency of the research and its lack of reliability</li>\n<li>sampling biases (e.g. gender, culture, age)</li>\n<li>potential participant and researcher biases.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Some research was quite complex and was misunderstood by candidates — for example, there were many inaccurate explanations of Rosser et al. (2007).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.HL.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing-in-the-digital-world"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies on the influence of emotion on cognitive processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Kulik (1977), Neisser and Harsch (1992), Sharot <em>et al.</em> (2007), Sharot, Delgado and Phelps (2004), Er (2003), McGaugh and Cahill’s (1995) studies on flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>LeDoux (1996) brain pathways for processing fear stimuli</li>\n<li>Talariko and Rubin’s (2003) study that demonstrates increased confidence in memory correlated to emotional intensity</li>\n<li>Brasel <em>et al.</em> (2006) the effects of emotion and perception</li>\n<li>Phelps <em>et al.</em> (2006) the effects of emotion and attention</li>\n<li>Bechara <em>et al.</em> (2000) the somatic marker hypothesis, decision making, gambling and the vmPFC.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>ecological versus internal validity</li>\n<li>the measurement of cultural influences</li>\n<li>contradictory evidence or alternative explanations</li>\n<li>sampling biases (e.g. gender, culture, age)</li>\n<li>potential participant and researcher biases</li>\n<li>ethical considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>There was a good variety of research used in this response. Most candidates used Brown &amp; Kulik, Sharot et al., Neisser &amp; Harsch or McGaugh &amp; 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.1.SL.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating the validity and/or reliability of diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Nicholls <em>et al.</em>’s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability</li>\n<li>Wakefield <em>et al.</em>’s (2007) study on the validity of diagnosis</li>\n<li>Silverman <em>et al.</em>’s (2001) study on test-retest of anxiety symptoms and diagnosis</li>\n<li>Rosenhan’s studies of diagnostic validity</li>\n<li>Kleinman’s (1982) study of differences in interpretation of somatic symptoms in Chinese culture and the United States</li>\n<li>Lipton and Simon’s (1985) study on reliability of diagnosis of randomly selected 131 patients in a hospital in New York</li>\n<li>Lobbestael, Leurgans and Arntz’s (2011) study of reliability of diagnosis using the DSM IV</li>\n<li>Bolton’s (2002) cross-cultural validity of the western key concept of PTSD</li>\n<li>Li-Repac’s (1980) study on the effect of cultural stereotyping on diagnosis.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of the research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. 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].</p>\n<p>Marks 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 </p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Generally 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating prevalence rates of <strong>one or more</strong> psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The disorder(s) chosen is/are likely to come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1977) study of gender vulnerability to depression</li>\n<li>Makino <em>et al.</em>’s (2004) study regarding the prevalence of eating disorders in Western and non-Western countries</li>\n<li>Weisman <em>et al.</em>’s (1995) study regarding the cross-cultural variation in data on depression rates</li>\n<li>Garrison <em>et al.</em> (1995) investigating the incidence of PTSD in adolescents after Hurricane Andrew</li>\n<li>Dutton’s (2009) study of cultural variation in the prevalence of major depression</li>\n<li>Nolen-Hoeksema’s (2001) study of gender rates in depression</li>\n<li>Piccinelli and Wilkinson’s (2000) study of gender differences in depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected study/studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how findings have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. 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].</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question — this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With 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.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "etiology-of-abnormal-psychology"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> biological treatment <strong>and one</strong> psychological treatment for <strong>one or more</strong> psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one biological and one psychological treatment for one or more psychological disorders.</p>\n<p>The disorder(s) chosen is/are likely to come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Biological treatment could include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>drug therapy</li>\n<li>electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)</li>\n<li>brain stimulation.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Psychological treatment could include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Interpersonal Therapy (IPT)</li>\n<li>Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)</li>\n<li>Exposure and Systematic desensitization</li>\n<li>Virtual Reality Therapy (VRT)</li>\n<li>Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT)</li>\n<li>Group therapy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mason and Hargreaves’s (2011) qualitative investigation into the effectiveness of MBCT</li>\n<li>Butler <em>et al.</em>’s (2006) review of meta-analysis related to CBT efficacy</li>\n<li>Hodges and Oei’s (2007) discussion of the applicability of CBT to Chinese culture</li>\n<li>MacNamara <em>et al.</em>’s (2016) studying the effectiveness of SSRIs for PTSD</li>\n<li>Parsons and Rizzo’s (2008) meta-analysis of studies into the effectiveness of virtual reality therapy for PTSD.</li>\n<li>McLay <em>et al.</em>’s (2011) assessment of the effectiveness of VRT for post-traumatic stress disorder.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the chosen treatment(s)</li>\n<li>the assumptions about etiology upon which the treatment is based with regard to the chosen disorder</li>\n<li>culture, gender, ethical, and/or practical considerations related to the use of treatment of the chosen disorder</li>\n<li>advantages and disadvantages of the treatment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than one biological treatment or more than one psychological treatment, credit should be given only to the first treatment.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> theories of brain development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of brain development.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>theory of neuroplasticity</li>\n<li>maturational theory of brain development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Waber's (2007); Gogtay <em>et al.</em>'s (2004) longitudinal studies of brain development using MRI scans</li>\n<li>Chugani <em>et al.</em>'s (2001) study on developmental changes in brain serotonin synthesis capacity</li>\n<li>Johnson and Newport's (1989) study on maturational predispositions for learning language</li>\n<li>Baird <em>et al.'</em>s (2002); Diamond's (1991) studies on maturation of frontal lobe and development of object permanence</li>\n<li>Bell and Fox's (1996) study on crawling experience related to changes in cortical organization during infancy using EEG</li>\n<li>Danelli <em>et al.</em>’s (2012) study of a 14-year-old adolescent who had left hemispherectomy at age 2.5 and later made substantial neuro-linguistic recovery</li>\n<li>Takatsuru <em>et al.</em> on how the brain compensates for damage caused by trauma.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into brain development</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative theories/explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Unfortunately, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-as-a-learner"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating influences on cognitive <strong>and/or</strong> social development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The term “influence” may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>genetic influence</li>\n<li>maturation of the nervous system</li>\n<li>trauma/deprivation</li>\n<li>resilience</li>\n<li>peers</li>\n<li>poverty</li>\n<li>nutrition</li>\n<li>educational programmes/support from parents/educators.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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<strong> influences</strong> on cognitive and/or social development.</p>\n<p>Relevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Waber's (2007); Giedd's (2004); Chugani <em>et al.</em>'s (2001) studies on the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development</li>\n<li>Deary <em>et al.</em>'s (2006); Bouchard <em>et al.</em>'s (1990) studies on genetic inheritance in intelligence</li>\n<li>Cowell <em>et al.</em>'s (2006); Corky's (1997) studies on brain damage and memory deficits</li>\n<li>Fagot's (1978); Condry and Condry's (1976) studies on the role of society in gender development</li>\n<li>Carly and Eagly's (1999); Eagly and Johnson's (1990); Maccoby and Jacklin's (1980) meta-analysis considering the influence of gender on group relations</li>\n<li>studies relating to Vygotsky addressing peer mentoring or the relevance of zone of proximal development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>application of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of the research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. 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].</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> theories of attachment.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term \"discuss\" requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of attachment.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment</li>\n<li>Ainsworth's theory of attachment styles</li>\n<li>Schaffer's theory of attachment stages</li>\n<li>Learning theory of attachment</li>\n<li>Kagan's temperament theory of attachment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rutter <em>et al.</em>'s (2004) study on attachment disorder</li>\n<li>Cockett and Tripp's (1994) study on long-term attachment deprivation effects</li>\n<li>Ainsworth <em>et al.</em>'s (1978) Ainsworth's (1969) cross-cultural studies</li>\n<li>Schaffer and Emerson's (1964) study on stages of attachment</li>\n<li>Hodges and Tizard's (1989) study on the effect of early institutionalisation</li>\n<li>Pederson <em>et al.</em>'s (1990); Main's (1981) studies on the mother's behaviour and secure attachment</li>\n<li>Blehar <em>et al.</em>'s (1977) study investigating how early mother-infant play predicts attachment patterns</li>\n<li>Hamilton's (2000) longitudinal study examining if attachment security is stable throughout childhood and adolescence</li>\n<li>Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) study on continuity in attachment patterns in romantic love.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into attachment</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>implication of the findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>alternative theories/explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-an-identity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effectiveness of <strong>one or more</strong> health promotion programmes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effectiveness of one or more health promotion programmes.</p>\n<p>Health promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>TRUTH campaign, anti-smoking campaign (Sly <em>et al.</em>, 2002; Schum and Gold, 2007)</li>\n<li>National Tobacco Campaign, Australia (Woodward, 2003)</li>\n<li>NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, England</li>\n<li>food labelling programmes</li>\n<li>taxes and/or subsidies upon products such as sugar, tobacco or alcohol</li>\n<li>stress reduction programmes such as MBSR or yoga as exercise</li>\n<li>public health campaigns designed to change beliefs and attitudes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant factors related to the effectiveness of health promotion may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>effectiveness of the reduction of risk factors of target population</li>\n<li>use of mass media to change health behaviours</li>\n<li>health promotion strategies used</li>\n<li>primary and secondary health promotion</li>\n<li>characteristics of the target population</li>\n<li>determinants of health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>ethical considerations in programme implementation</li>\n<li>conditions under which the programme may be employed</li>\n<li>empirical evidence of programme success or failure</li>\n<li>methodological concerns in measuring outcomes of the programme.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker candidates made a more general attempt, discussing health in general and factors that lead to health/disease.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies related to prevalence rates of health problems.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Health problems are likely to come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rhani, Bonu, Jha, Nyguen and Jamjoum’s (2003) study in tobacco use prevalence rates in India</li>\n<li>Thoits’s (1995) study of gender prevalence in giving and receiving social support</li>\n<li>Parker <em>et al.</em>’s (2005) study of prevalence rates from 1992 and 2002 showing increasing health problems among Swedish elderly population</li>\n<li>Makino <em>et al.</em>’s (2004) study of prevalence rates in eating disorders in Western and non-Western countries</li>\n<li>Weinberger <em>et al.</em>’s (2019) study on increasing prevalence rates of smoking in US adults with mental health and substance use problems</li>\n<li>Zheng <em>et al.</em>’s (2018) study of prevalence rates of smoking and knowledge of health hazards among internal migrants in China</li>\n<li>Agha <em>et al.</em>’s (2017) study related to rising prevalence rates of obesity and related effects on public health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. 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].</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Engel’s (1977) biopsychosocial model of health</li>\n<li>Buckner, Heimberg, Ecker, and Vinci’s (2012) study in the use of the biopsychosocial model to treat addiction</li>\n<li>Wallace’s (1990) biopsychosocial disease model of alcoholism</li>\n<li>Nguyen <em>et al.</em>’s (2016) review of biopsychosocial treatment for obesity</li>\n<li>Jack’s (2013) biopsychosocial factors affecting female metabolism in type 1 diabetes</li>\n<li>Cohen <em>et al.</em>’s (2003) treatment of nicotine dependence: biopsychosocial perspective.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the importance of considering a holistic approach to health</li>\n<li>advantages and disadvantages of the model</li>\n<li>methodological considerations related to the research into the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being</li>\n<li>cultural factors and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory empirical evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations</li>\n<li>accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>practical applications.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Strengths 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "determinants-of-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> explanations for why relationships change or end.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of explanations for why relationships change or end.</p>\n<p>Explanations of why relationships change or end may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social exchange theory</li>\n<li>equity theory</li>\n<li>attribution theory</li>\n<li>evolutionary explanations such as mate retention</li>\n<li>patterns of communication</li>\n<li>attachment styles</li>\n<li>fatal attraction theory</li>\n<li>other theories which show progression into a relationship or development/change within a relationship.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flora and Seagrin’s (2003) study on the role of perception of the relationship</li>\n<li>Felmlee’s (1995, 1998) study investigating fatal attraction theory</li>\n<li>Levenson, Carstensen and Gottman’s (1994) and Gottman and Levenson’s (1992) study on communication patterns, physiological arousal, and marital satisfaction</li>\n<li>Buss and Shackelford’s (1997) study on mate retention behaviour in men and women.</li>\n<li>Fincham et al.’s (2000) and Graham and Conoley (2006) study on the relationship between attributions and marital satisfaction.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>examining underlying assumptions and biases of relationships</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory evidence</li>\n<li>methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research into the explanations for why relationships change or end</li>\n<li>cultural/gender considerations</li>\n<li>alternative explanations</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social exchange theory</li>\n<li>equity theory</li>\n<li>attribution theory</li>\n<li>evolutionary explanations such as mate retention</li>\n<li>patterns of communication</li>\n<li>attachment styles</li>\n<li>fatal attraction theory</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Strengths 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.</p>\n<p>Weaknesses 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> ethical considerations in studies investigating group dynamics.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more ethical considerations in research investigating group dynamics.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>protection from physical or mental harm</li>\n<li>briefing and debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw from a study</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>anonymity/confidentiality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sherif’s (1966) field experiment on competition in groups – informed parental consent</li>\n<li>Lyons-Padilla <em>et al.’</em>s (2015) survey investigating relationships between cultural identity, experiences of discrimination, and attitudes towards extremism – informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality</li>\n<li>Sternberg and Dobson’s (1987) study on resolution of interpersonal conflicts and Sternberg and Soriano’s (1984) study on styles of conflict resolution – anonymity and confidentiality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion related to ethical considerations may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of informed consent when studying groups</li>\n<li>why deception is often used in studies of group dynamics</li>\n<li>the difficulties of ensuring confidentiality in social psychology research, especially in research into group dynamics</li>\n<li>the potential for psychological and physical harm and associated restrictions on research design</li>\n<li>decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed</li>\n<li>changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "group-dynamics"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies investigating prosocial behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.<br/>Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piliavin <em>et al.</em>’s (1969), field experiment on factors involved in helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Whiting and Whiting’s (1979) comparison of prosocial behaviour in six cultures as a result of child-rearing practices</li>\n<li>Batson <em>et al.</em>’s (1981) experiment on participants' motivation to help if they could escape based on the empathy-altruism theory</li>\n<li>Latane and Darley’s (1968) study on bystanderism</li>\n<li>Oliner and Oliner’s (1998) study on dispositional factors and personal norms in prosocial behaviour in relation to rescuing Jews during the Second World War</li>\n<li>Miller <em>et al.</em>’s (1990) study on the influence of cultural norms and moral values on perceptions of social responsibility</li>\n<li>Levine <em>et al.</em>’s (2001) study investigating cross-cultural differences in helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Bartlett and DeSteno’s (2006) study on gratitude mediation of prosocial behaviour</li>\n<li>Gentile <em>et al.</em>’s (2009) study on the effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviours.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n<li>practical applications of empirical findings (e.g. anti-bullying programmes)</li>\n<li>how the findings of the research have been interpreted</li>\n<li>implications of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. 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].</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n<p>Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question - this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piliavin et al.'s (1969) field experiment on factors involved in helping behaviour </li>\n<li>Whiting and Whiting's (1979) comparison of prosocial behaviour in six cultures as a result of child-rearing practices</li>\n<li>Batson et al.'s (1981) experiment on participants' motivation to help if they could escape based on the empathy-altruism theory</li>\n<li>Latane and Darley's (1968)study on bystanderism</li>\n<li>Levine et al.'s (2001) study investigating cross-cultural differences in helping behaviour</li>\n</ul>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Many responses provided clear evidence of critical thinking by offering:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "22M.2.HL.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain how <strong>one </strong>principle that defines the biological level of analysis has been demonstrated in <strong>one </strong>example of research (theory or study).</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Acceptable principles may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>patterns of behaviour may be inherited</li>\n<li>animal research may inform our understanding of human behaviour</li>\n<li>there are biological correlates to human behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a relevant principle and a relevant theory or study are provided, but no explicit link is made between them, a maximum of <strong>[6] </strong>should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains a principle making no link to an example of research at the biological level of analysis, up to a maximum of <strong>[4] </strong>should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3] </strong>should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe how <strong>one </strong>biological factor may affect <strong>one </strong>cognitive process, with reference to <strong>one </strong>research study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one biological factor affects one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Possible cognitive processes include, but are not limited to: memory, language acquisition, problem solving, attention, decision-making and perception.</p>\n<p>Research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Broca’s (1861) and Wernicke’s (1874) studies of localization of function investigating language production and language understanding</li>\n<li>Martinez and Kesner’s (1991) investigation of neurotransmission and memory</li>\n<li>Milner <em>et al</em>.’s (1968) and Blakemore’s (1988) case studies of HM and Clive Wearing, investigating the role of the hippocampus on memory</li>\n<li>Bruce and Young’s (1986) investigations into specific brain areas and face recognition</li>\n<li>biological changes caused by Alzheimer’s disease leading to dementia (Lorenzo <em>et al. </em>2000; Kensiger and Corkin, 2003).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one biological factor, credit should be given only to the description of the first biological factor.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the description of the first cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe social learning theory with reference to <strong>one </strong>relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The learning outcome “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social learning theory in relation to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>The main aspects of social learning theory may include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>imitation of models</li>\n<li>observational learning</li>\n<li>the role of attention, retention, motivation and reproduction</li>\n<li>the role of vicarious reinforcement and/or punishment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses may refer to studies such as, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bandura <em>et al.’s </em>studies on aggression</li>\n<li>Totten (2003) observational learning of violent behaviour towards girlfriends</li>\n<li>Sprafkin <em>et al. </em>(1975) on children’s prosocial behaviour and television model</li>\n<li>Fagot <em>et al. </em>(1992) on parental influences on gender development.\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing the theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes social learning theory without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[4] </strong>should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-norms"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the merits of the principle that genetic inheritance influences behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>In order to address the command term “to what extent”, candidates may address:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the interaction of genes with the environment</li>\n<li>strengths and limitations of genetic research</li>\n<li>alternative explanations – i.e. cognitive and sociocultural explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Heston’s (1966), Gottesman’s (1991) and Kety <em>et al.</em>’s (1975) studies examining the genetic inheritance of schizophrenia</li>\n<li>Kendler <em>et al. </em>(2006), Caspi <em>et al. </em>(2003) and Nurnberger and Gershon (1982) on the possible genetic factors involved in depression</li>\n<li>Garn <em>et al. </em>(1981) and Stunkard <em>et al. </em>(1990) examining obesity and genetic factors</li>\n<li>Bouchard <em>et al. </em>(1990), Scarr and Weinberg (1977), and Plomin and Petrill (1977) examining IQ and genetic inheritance.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Explanations 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one </strong>theory of how emotion may affect <strong>one </strong>cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion, such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving or decision-making.</p>\n<p>Examples of theories include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Kulik’s flashbulb memory theory</li>\n<li>Bower’s theory of state-dependent cues</li>\n<li>Frank’s emotional precommitment model of decision making</li>\n<li>Loftus’s theory of weapon focus</li>\n<li>McGinnies’s perceptual defence research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected theory includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>degree of empirical support</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>application and/or usefulness of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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 <strong>[6]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognition-and-emotion"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss why <strong>two </strong>particular research methods are used to investigate behaviour at the sociocultural level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Research methods may include, but are not limited to, two of the following:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>case studies</li>\n<li>correlational studies</li>\n<li>experiments (laboratory, field or natural/quasi)</li>\n<li>interviews</li>\n<li>observations</li>\n<li>surveys/questionnaires</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of research studies could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Festinger’s (1956) covert observation studying cult behaviour</li>\n<li>Bandura’s (1961, 1963, 1965) laboratory experiments investigating social learning theory</li>\n<li>Hofstede’s (1973) use of questionnaires to study cultural differences in the workplace</li>\n<li>Sherif’s (1954) “Robber’s Cave” field experiment investigating the realistic conflict theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one research method, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.1.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do sociocultural factors influence abnormal behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contributions of sociocultural factors influencing abnormal behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to, the relevance of sociocultural factors for etiology, diagnosis and treatment.</p>\n<p>Sociocultural factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>sociocultural stressors</li>\n<li>media influences</li>\n<li>cross-cultural differences influencing body dissatisfaction</li>\n<li>the link between poverty and mood disorders</li>\n<li>differences in socialization which may produce different symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Zhang’s (1998) study of mood disorders in China</li>\n<li>Jacobs’ (1998) investigation of Indian women in Great Britain</li>\n<li>Kleinman’s (1982) study of neurasthenia in China</li>\n<li>Jenkins-Hall and Sacco’s (1991) study of ethnicity bias in diagnosis.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework-(applicable-to-all-topics-in-the-option)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss concepts of normality and abnormality.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes various concepts of normality and abnormality.</p>\n<p>Concepts of normality and abnormality may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the mental health criterion/model</li>\n<li>the statistical criterion/model</li>\n<li>abnormality as mental illness (medical model)</li>\n<li>the psychoanalytic explanation of the concept of abnormality</li>\n<li>the cognitive explanation of the concept of abnormality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cross-cultural issues</li>\n<li>gender biases</li>\n<li>supporting or contradicting evidence</li>\n<li>the issue of labelling</li>\n<li>historical perspectives on changing norms on normality (for example, changing views on homosexuality or political dissent)</li>\n<li>difficulties in defining normality/abnormality</li>\n<li>difficulties in diagnosing normality/abnormality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rosenhan and Seligman (1984) – seven criteria of abnormality</li>\n<li>Jahoda (1958) – six characteristics of mental health</li>\n<li>Szasz (1962) – mental disorders as “problems in living”.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "concepts-and-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the use of an eclectic approach to treatment.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>An 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.</p>\n<p>Many examples of eclectic approaches to treatment are available, for example:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sharp <em>et al.’</em>s (1999) study of drug therapy combined with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)</li>\n<li>Pampallona’s (2004) analysis of the relative effectiveness of drug therapy versus combined treatment</li>\n<li>Elkin <em>et al.</em>’s (1989) study of the relative effectiveness of interpersonal therapy (IPT), CBT, drugs and placebo</li>\n<li>McDermut <em>et al.</em>’s (2001) study of group therapy versus CBT.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Strengths of the eclectic approach may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>strengths of each separate approach are combined so that potential limitations of a specific approach are decreased</li>\n<li>the overall treatment is tailored to the specific needs of the client</li>\n<li>it provides flexibility in treatment (for example, many patients suffer from several disorders at the same time)</li>\n<li>lower relapse rates.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Limitations of the eclectic approach may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>too complex for one clinician to manage</li>\n<li>difficult to empirically study its long-term effectiveness</li>\n<li>using too many approaches may reduce the effectiveness of each individual approach</li>\n<li>cost.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "implementing-treatment"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one </strong>example of psychological research (theory or study) into adolescence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one theory or one study related to adolescence.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Erikson’s identity theory</li>\n<li>Coleman’s focal theory</li>\n<li>Baethge’s cultural theory</li>\n<li>Lewin’s field theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Marcia’s studies on the different types of identity status</li>\n<li>Mead’s anthropological studies</li>\n<li>Rutter <em>et al.</em>’s studies on the relationships between adolescents and their parents</li>\n<li>Steinberg’s studies on parent-adolescent conflicts</li>\n<li>Condon’s (1987) study challenging the cross-cultural validity of Erikson’s theory</li>\n<li>Ferron’s (1997) cross-cultural study on body image in adolescence</li>\n<li>studies related to teenage brain development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>appropriateness of concepts in explaining adolescence</li>\n<li>problems in explaining individual differences</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and contradicting evidence</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>the applications of the research</li>\n<li>stage versus continuous development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does attachment in childhood play a role in the formation of relationships later in life?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that attachment in childhood has on relationships later in life.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Pratt and Norris (1994) – the more positive earlier attachment relationships, the more positive reports on current social relationships</li>\n<li>Hazan and Shaver (1987) – similarities between romantic love as experienced by adults and the characteristics of attachment</li>\n<li>Rossi and Rossi (1990) – people who grew up in cohesive families tended to establish positive relationships with their own partners</li>\n<li>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</li>\n<li>Bowlby’s research on how maternal deprivation can affect an individual later in life.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses referring to research with animals, such as Harlow’s studies with rhesus monkeys, are relevant but must be linked to attachment in humans.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[4] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Analyse cultural variation in gender roles.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “analyse” requires candidates to bring out (emphasize) the essential aspects of cultural variation in gender roles.</p>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Eagly’s social role theory</li>\n<li>Bandura’s social learning theory</li>\n<li>gender schema theory</li>\n<li>Money’s theory on gender roles</li>\n<li>Mead’s (1935) anthropological study</li>\n<li>Best <em>et al.</em>’s (1977) cross-cultural study on gender stereotypes</li>\n<li>Cuddy <em>et al.</em>’s (2010) study on how gender stereotypes are shaped in different cultures with participants attributing positive traits to men</li>\n<li>Smith and Lloyd’s (1978) experiment on the perception of gender.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>evidence from studies concerning the existence of cultural variation in gender roles</li>\n<li>the methodological and/or ethical considerations of research</li>\n<li>whether sociocultural influences create gender differences or merely accentuate them</li>\n<li>whether differences between males and females are purely social constructs or a result of biological differences</li>\n<li>differences between collectivistic versus individualistic societies</li>\n<li>interaction between biological, cognitive and cultural factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do cognitive factors influence health-related behaviour (stress, substance abuse, addictive behaviour, overeating and/or obesity)?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the merits or otherwise of the influence of cognitive factors on health-related behaviour.</p>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or biological factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates may approach health-related behaviour as a whole or use specific examples of health-related behaviour. Both approaches are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>Responses may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social self-preservation theory</li>\n<li>cognitive restraint theory</li>\n<li>the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy</li>\n<li>the health belief model</li>\n<li>cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1956)</li>\n<li>self-perception theory (Bem, 1967).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies that relate to cognitive factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Kamen and Seligman (1987) who suggest that attributional style might predict health levels later in life</li>\n<li>Greer’s (1979) study connecting beliefs and physiology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Factors 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 <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more </strong>treatments for obesity.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Treatment choices include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the behavioural programme developed by Stuart and Davis (1972) for a clinical setting</li>\n<li>cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) combined with dieting (<em>eg </em>Beck, 2005)</li>\n<li>the psycho-social method proposed by Blair-West (2007) that combines goal setting, diet, physical activity and cognitive awareness</li>\n<li>drug treatments such as appetite suppressants and lipase inhibitors</li>\n<li>surgical procedures such as gastric bypass and gastric banding</li>\n<li>treatments such as Weight Watchers.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the treatments may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>empirical findings</li>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>conditions where the treatments may be employed</li>\n<li>comparison to other treatment methods.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for critical thinking and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p>Responses that only address prevention strategies should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more </strong>models and/or theories of health promotion.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Models/theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the health belief model (HBM)</li>\n<li>the stages of change model</li>\n<li>any of the various public health promotions such as the VERB (2002–2006), TRUTH (1998–99), tips from former smokers (2012), ACT against AIDS (2011), HEART campaign (Zambia 1990s–2000).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural or gender considerations</li>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>the productivity of the model or theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>application of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>competing theories or studies</li>\n<li>cognitive dissonance theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-promotion"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>There are a number of different strategies that candidates may refer to. A strategy is any plan of action or a programme for reducing violence.</p>\n<p>Examples of psychological research relevant to strategies for reducing violence may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Olweus’s (1993) longitudinal study on the effect of Olweus’s bullying prevention program (OBPP) on bullying</li>\n<li>metropolitan area child study (MACS), 2002 – longitudinal study on the effectiveness of a community-based strategy</li>\n<li>Aronson’s (1979) jigsaw classrooms research</li>\n<li>Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) broken windows theory</li>\n<li>Feshbach and Feshbach (1982) on the effect of empathy training on reducing violence</li>\n<li>Ferguson <em>et al.</em>’s (2007) meta-analysis of effectiveness of school based programmes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>the effectiveness of the strategies</li>\n<li>supporting and contradicting evidence</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "violence"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more </strong>biological origins of attraction.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of one or more biological explanations for the origin of attraction.</p>\n<p>Responses may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of neurotransmitters (<em>eg </em>Fisher, 2004) and hormones</li>\n<li>evolutionary explanations (<em>eg </em>Buss, 1996; mechanisms of attraction in the brain, <em>eg </em>findings suggesting the hypothalamus triggers physiological arousal; the influence of pheromones <em>eg </em>Wedekind’s sweaty T-shirt study)</li>\n<li>studies on male ritual behaviour in animals.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the biological explanation of attraction may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>contradictory findings</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>gender considerations</li>\n<li>empirical evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations of attraction, such as social and/or cognitive</li>\n<li>relevance of animal research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain why relationships may change or end.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons and causes, as to why relationships may change or end.</p>\n<p>Candidates do not have to differentiate between relationships that change or end to gain high marks.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address different types of relationships, for example, romantic relationships, marriages, friendship, family relationships.</p>\n<p>Responses may address how factors such as predisposing personal factors, intimacy, commitment or similar/different interests can influence if relationships may change or end.</p>\n<p>As part of their explanation, candidates should outline the theories/studies that underpin these explanations, evaluate their effectiveness, or discuss their application in different relationships.</p>\n<p>Explanations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social exchange theory</li>\n<li>equity theory</li>\n<li>patterns of accommodation</li>\n<li>attachment styles</li>\n<li>Sternberg’s triangular (triarchic) theory of love.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evidence of critical thinking may be demonstrated by, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>analysis and application of research</li>\n<li>a discussion of cultural differences</li>\n<li>a discussion of gender differences.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flora and Segrin (2003) on the role of perception of the relationship</li>\n<li>Duck <em>et al</em>. (1988) on the role of age differences in couples</li>\n<li>Duck (1992) on the role of socio-economic differences in couples.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>two or more </strong>theories of motivation in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Theories of motivation in sport include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1975)</li>\n<li>achievement motivation needs theory (McClelland and Atkinson, 1961)</li>\n<li>Intrinsic motivation (Ashford <em>et al. </em>1993)</li>\n<li>extrinsic motivation (Smith <em>et al. </em>1979)</li>\n<li>self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977)</li>\n<li>competence motivation theory (Harter, 1978)</li>\n<li>Murray’s need for achievement (1938)</li>\n<li>fear of failure (Atkinson and Litwin, 1960)</li>\n<li>self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>strengths and weaknesses of the theories</li>\n<li>practical applications and efficacy of the various theories</li>\n<li>cultural and/or gender considerations</li>\n<li>studies that are used to support or refute the theories.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations of theories of motivation in sports, the response should be awarded a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and understanding.</p>\n<p>If a candidate evaluates only one theory of motivation, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.13",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-motivation"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>two or more </strong>techniques for skill development in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of two or more techniques used for skill development in sport.</p>\n<p>Techniques for skill development may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>massed practice vs distributed practices (<em>eg </em>repetition) – Fitts and Posner (1967); Singer (1965), Wickelgren (1981)</li>\n<li>mental imagery research: Rushall (1970), Baroga (1973); Issac (1992)</li>\n<li>research on self-talk (Martin <em>et al. </em>1995, Landin and Herbert, 1999; Araki <em>et al. </em>2006).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>theories that underpin these techniques</li>\n<li>an evaluation of their effectiveness</li>\n<li>an application in different sports</li>\n<li>comparison between different techniques.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.14",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "skill-development-and-performance"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more </strong>examples of psychological research relevant to sport psychology.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant psychological research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>goal setting behaviour (Hochstetler <em>et al. </em>1985)</li>\n<li>arousal and anxiety as they are related to performance (<em>eg </em>inverted U theory)</li>\n<li>relationships between team cohesion and performance and the role of the coach (Chase <em>et al. </em>1997)</li>\n<li>athlete response to stress and/or chronic injury (Anderson and Williams, 1999)</li>\n<li>burnout in sport (Smith, 1986; Gould <em>et al. </em>1996).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5] </strong>for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.2.BP.TZ0.15",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Young 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood: <br/>a qualitative study.”<em> British Journal of General Practice</em>, 2004, 54, 813–818.]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain <strong>one </strong>effect of participant expectations <strong>and one </strong>effect of researcher bias that could be relevant to this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons and causes, of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">one</span> effect of participant expectations <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">and one</span> effect of researcher bias that could be relevant to this study.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Participant expectations can be described as participant factors that could influence the outcome of the research.</p>\n<p>Effects of participants’ expectations in this study could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Participants’ ideas of the study could lead them to give answers they think are in line with what they think the researchers want, which would bias the data. This could be particularly true if there is a good rapport between the interviewer and the participants. In this study, the participants could perhaps assume that the researcher is more interested in the positive aspects of teenage motherhood than the negative and therefore adjust their answers in that direction. However, it is very difficult to check if this happens.</li>\n<li>Social desirability effects could be a factor in a socially sensitive study like the one in the stimulus material: participants may behave in ways that they think will give them social approval. In this study it could be that the young mothers answer the researchers' questions in ways that make them appear in a better light because they don't want to admit to undesirable traits such as not being able to live up to their role as a mother. They could for example say that they feel happier than they actually do in order to avoid negative reactions. If this is the case the results would be biased.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Effects 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…”).</p>\n<p>Effects of researcher bias in this study could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Collection of data (interviewing): the researchers conducted the interviews themselves and they may have influenced the outcome of the interview by nodding and smiling more when participants respond as expected and smiling less when they give less expected answers.</li>\n<li>Data analysis: the researchers’ beliefs and expectations of a more positive way of experiencing early motherhood could influence the way the data is analyzed. This could be dealt with by having another researcher check the analysis (credibility check).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses only participant expectations or only researcher bias apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-effects-of-participant-expectations-and-researcher-bias-in-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Young 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood: <br/>a qualitative study.”<em> British Journal of General Practice</em>, 2004, 54, 813–818.]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the purposive sampling technique used in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Strengths of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Because the participants accurately represent the topic under investigation they could provide rich data.</li>\n<li>It is relatively easy to select a sample once the selection criteria are clear. In this study, seventeen potential participants were found through a database but only nine of them agreed to be interviewed. It is a small sample but the participants all fit the selection criteria and eventually, more participants could be recruited in the same way or perhaps, through snowballing.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Limitations of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sampling may be biased. For example, in this study only nine out of seventeen originally found to match the selection criteria agreed to participate. It could be that they were the ones who were particularly positive about their experience as a young mother.</li>\n<li>The sample is not representative in a statistical sense because it is based on specific criteria so it is difficult to generalize. However, in this qualitative study representational or theoretical generalization could be considered.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-case-studies"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluate-the-use-of-case-studies-in-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Young 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Adapted from Clare J. Seamark and Pamela Lings, “Positive experiences of teenage motherhood: <br/>a qualitative study.”<em> British Journal of General Practice</em>, 2004, 54, 813–818.]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain <strong>two or more </strong>ethical considerations relevant to this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks. </em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Relevant ethical considerations in this study include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The researchers informed the participants about the study and their rights before the participants gave their consent.</li>\n<li>Anonymity (and confidentiality) is particularly important in a qualitative study like this one exploring personal and sensitive issues around teenage pregnancy and motherhood. The researchers made sure that the names of the participants were anonymous by changing them in the final report (line 15). The stimulus material mentions that there are negative expectations surrounding teenage pregnancy so the young mothers could feel stigmatized so anonymity is very important – especially as the research is conducted in the city where the young mothers live.</li>\n<li>The researchers also presented their project to a local research ethics committee in order to be sure that they would not violate ethical rules.</li>\n<li>Protection of participants – the interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes. This could be in order to make them feel more at ease discussing this sensitive topic.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains only one ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "16N.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-reflexivity-in-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> effect of neurotransmission on human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the</em> <em>paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em><br/><br/>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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of serotonin in depression</li>\n<li>the role of acetylcholine in memory</li>\n<li>the role of dopamine in addiction</li>\n<li>the role of noradrenaline (norepinephrine) in attention.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Animal 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> ethical consideration related to one research study at the cognitive level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations which may be discussed include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>protection from physical or mental harm</li>\n<li>briefing and debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw from a study</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>anonymity/confidentiality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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].</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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].</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes a study but one ethical consideration is not explicitly addressed, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> explanation for the formation of stereotypes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one explanation for the formation of stereotypes.</p>\n<p>Research explaining the formation of stereotypes may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Tajfel’s (1969) social categorization theory (stereotypes acting as cognitive schemas in information processing)</li>\n<li>Campbell’s (1967) theory of gatekeepers and the grain of truth hypothesis</li>\n<li>Hamilton and Gifford’s (1976) illusory correlation theory</li>\n<li>conformity to dominant social representations (Rogers and Frantz, 1962)</li>\n<li>realistic conflict theory (Sherif)</li>\n<li>social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner)</li>\n<li>the Princeton trilogy studies</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one explanation of the formation of stereotypes, credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n<p>Whether 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only presents a relevant study without making reference to the formation of stereotypes, up to a maximum of [3] should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>one or more</strong> brain imaging technologies in investigating the relationship between biological factors and behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Brain imaging technologies could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>CT (computerized tomography)</li>\n<li>PET (positron emission tomography)</li>\n<li>MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)</li>\n<li>fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging)</li>\n<li>EEG (electroencephalography).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may refer to studies such as:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Corkin (1997) using MRI to investigate the effect of damage to HM’s medial temporal lobes and the effect on memory formation.</li>\n<li>Brefczynski-Lewis et al.’s (2007) study to investigate the effect of meditation on the brain using fMRI.</li>\n<li>Maguire et al.’s (2000) study using MRI scans to investigate spatial ability and neuroplasticity in taxi drivers.</li>\n<li>Ogden’s (2005) study using CT scans to investigate the effect of brain damage on hemineglect.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>how brain imaging technologies have changed and furthered the study of behaviour</li>\n<li>differences in why and how different technologies are used</li>\n<li>evaluation of the techniques (for example, cost/benefit analysis, reductionism)</li>\n<li>ethical and methodological considerations in the use of the technology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address one biological factor, or more than one. Both approaches are equally acceptable.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how social and/or cultural factors affect <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of appropriate factors include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effect of cultural norms and past experience on memory (Bartlett, 1932)</li>\n<li>the effect of social identity on formation of flashbulb memories (Luminet and Curci, 2009)</li>\n<li>the effect of schooling on encoding strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974)</li>\n<li>the effect of cultural upbringing on memories of self (Wang, 2006)</li>\n<li>the effect of poverty on cognitive processing, in particular free recall tasks (Mani, 2013; Pollitt, 1995)</li>\n<li>the role of environmental factors on perception (Deregowski, 1972; Segall et al.’s carpentered world hypothesis, 1966).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the cultural and/or social factors may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Methodological considerations</li>\n<li>Empirical support and contrary findings</li>\n<li>Application of empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first discussion.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of <strong>one or more</strong> cultural dimensions on human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of<br/>one or more cultural dimensions on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Cultural dimensions include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>power distance: the way people perceive power differences and how they react to<br/>power relations</li>\n<li>individualism versus collectivism: how much people define themselves apart from their group memberships</li>\n<li>masculinity versus femininity: differences between “masculine” and “feminine” cultures</li>\n<li>uncertainty avoidance: society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity</li>\n<li>long-term versus short-term orientation (Confucian dynamism): time perspective in a society for the gratification of people’s needs</li>\n<li>monochronous versus polychronous time orientation: another form of time perspective in which punctuality, deadlines, and future orientation affect behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical issues</li>\n<li>empirical evidence</li>\n<li>application of the findings</li>\n<li>alternative explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-norms"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating the reliability of <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Cognitive processes may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Memory – reconstructive memory, false memories, eye-witness testimony, flashbulb memory, memory distortions</li>\n<li>Perception – top-down/bottom-up processing, visual illusions, values, context, cultural factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) “War of the Ghosts” study relating to schema theory</li>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study on reconstructive memory</li>\n<li>Riniolo et al.’s (2009) archival study of eyewitness memory related to the sinking of the Titanic</li>\n<li>Deffenbacher et al. (2004) on emotion and reliability of memory</li>\n<li>Deregowski’s (1972) study on visual perception and culture.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate only describes the reliability of one cognitive process without making reference to a<br/>relevant research study, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ2.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe the “etic” concept, making reference to <strong>one</strong> example.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>“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.</p>\n<p>A description of the “etic” concept may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>a deductive approach based on established theory</li>\n<li>often uses an ethnocentric approach</li>\n<li>use of standardized materials that have established reliability</li>\n<li>the goal is generalization to the human population</li>\n<li>use of \"experts\" trained in psychology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of “etic” research may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cole and Scribner (1974) – research in cultural differences in memory strategies</li>\n<li>Kashima and Triandis (1986) on cultural differences in attributional styles</li>\n<li>Berry (1967) – variation of Asch’s conformity study</li>\n<li>Kleinman (1982) on cultural differences in expression of depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If 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].</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate example without describing the etic concept, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3].</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ2.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-norms"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> effects of the environment on <strong>one or more</strong> physiological processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.</p>\n<p>Candidates should explicitly identify an appropriate environmental factor and the relevant physiological process.</p>\n<p>Examples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>jet lag on Circadian rhythms</li>\n<li>daylight hours and levels of melatonin</li>\n<li>poverty on neuroplasticity</li>\n<li>environmental stressors and General Adaptation Syndrome</li>\n<li>effects of institutionalization on growth and physical development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Maguire et al.’s (2000) on neuroplasticity in the hippocampus of taxi drivers</li>\n<li>Marmot et al.’s (1997) Whitehall study on workplace stress and general health</li>\n<li>Meaney’s (1988) study on how environmental stressors lead to hippocampal cell loss in rats</li>\n<li>Rosenzweig and Bennett’s (1972) study on stimulating environments and dendritic branching</li>\n<li>Bremner et al. (2003) on environmental stressors and the reduction of hippocampal volume.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and/or ethical issues</li>\n<li>supporting and contrary findings</li>\n<li>application of the findings</li>\n<li>contributing factors other than the environment affecting physiological processes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than two effects, credit should be given only to the first two discussions.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of technology in investigating <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the ways in which technology is used in investigating one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Cognitive processes may include, but are not limited to: memory; perception; attention; language; decision-making.</p>\n<p>Examples include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The use of PET scans to monitor brain activity during cognitive tasks (Mosconi, 2005).</li>\n<li>The use of MRI scans to observe specific deficits in the brain and how this impacts cognitive processing (Corkin, 1997) or to observe changes in structures related to cognition over time (Maguire’s studies: 2000; 2002; 2011).</li>\n<li>The role of fMRI scans to investigate the interaction of parts of the brain in flashbulb memories (Phelps, 2011; Sharot, 2007).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>how brain imaging technologies have changed the study of cognitive psychology</li>\n<li>differences in why and how different technologies are used</li>\n<li>evaluation of the techniques (for example, cost/benefit analysis, reductionism)</li>\n<li>ethical and methodological considerations in the use of the technology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate social identity theory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<p>Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sherif et al.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)</li>\n<li>Cialdini et al.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)</li>\n<li>Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)</li>\n<li>Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the theory in explaining inter-group behaviour</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>applications of the theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.1.BP.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "sociocultural-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Contrast <strong>one</strong> individual approach (psychological, not biomedical) and <strong>one</strong> group approach to the treatment of one disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Expect 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.</p>\n<p>Responses could contrast:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the two approaches to treatment</li>\n<li>the role of the therapist</li>\n<li>appropriateness for different cultural contexts</li>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>gender differences</li>\n<li>cost in time and money</li>\n<li>strengths and limitations of the approaches to treatment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Possible disorders likely to be addressed are major depressive disorder, anorexia and bulimia, but other disorders are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "implementing-treatment"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do biological factors influence abnormal behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological<br/>factors influencing abnormal behaviour. It may be appropriate and useful for candidates to<br/>address the influence of other factors (for example, environmental factors) in order to respond to<br/>the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Biological factors could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of genes (for example, correlational studies related to eating disorders)</li>\n<li>hormones (for example, the cortisol theory of depression)</li>\n<li>neurotransmitters (for example, the serotonin hypothesis)</li>\n<li>evolutionary theories (for example, preparedness with phobias).</li>\n<li>Candidates could choose to provide a general response on the extent to which biological factors influence abnormal behaviour or they could provide a response discussing the extent to which biological factors influence one specific disorder.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework-(applicable-to-all-topics-in-the-option)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> cultural considerations in diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of cultural considerations relevant to diagnosis.</p>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>how different cultures define abnormality</li>\n<li>classification systems may be culturally biased</li>\n<li>difference in prevalence rates across cultures</li>\n<li>changes in culture over time</li>\n<li>symptoms may be culturally determined</li>\n<li>emic versus etic approaches to diagnosis</li>\n<li>culture-bound syndromes</li>\n<li>“over-pathologizing” due to lack of understanding of different cultural norms.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "concepts-and-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine how <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> sociocultural factors influence human development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Sociocultural factors influencing human development may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the influence of culture on cognitive development (for example, Vygotsky, 1978; Cole and Scribner, 1974)</li>\n<li>the effect of poverty on cognitive development (for example, Krugman, 2008; Schoon et al., 2002)</li>\n<li>the influence of culture on gender roles (for example, Cuddy et al., 2010; Best et al., 1977; Mead, 1935)</li>\n<li>the influence of sociocultural factors in attachment (for example, Van Ijzendorn and Kroonenberg, 1988)</li>\n<li>the role of contextual factors (family, school, neighbourhood, community and culture) on resilience (for example, Love et al., 2005).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “examine” requires candidates to uncover the assumptions and interrelationships between physical change and identity development during adolescence.</p>\n<p>Relevant 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Simmons and Blyth (1987) – the cultural ideal hypothesis</li>\n<li>Ferron (1997) - cultural differences in the way adolescents view bodily changes</li>\n<li>Mead’s cross-cultural theory</li>\n<li>studies on the timing of puberty and its impact on body image, self-esteem and behaviour: Brooks-Gunn and Paikoff (1993); Blyth, Bulcroft and Simmons (1981); Jones (1965).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The examined points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the difficulty of generalizing the psychological effects of physical changes – they depend on the timing of puberty and they differ in boys and girls</li>\n<li>the development of identity is influenced by the interaction of biological, cognitive and social factors and is not dominated by biology</li>\n<li>culture is also a strong determinant in self-perception and body shape perception</li>\n<li>researchers have expressed doubt that puberty’s effects on development of identity are as strong as once believed.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one</strong> theory of cognitive development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piaget’s assimilation/accommodation model</li>\n<li>Vygotsky’s contextual approach to cognitive development</li>\n<li>Bruner’s theory</li>\n<li>information-processing approach to cognitive development</li>\n<li>neurobiological explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>productivity of the theories in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>applications of the theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Although 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>two</strong> strategies for coping with stress.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant strategies (including models and techniques) may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies (Lazarus and Folkman, 1975, 1988)</li>\n<li>forms of cognitive behavioural therapy such as stress inoculation training (Meichenbaum, 1985)</li>\n<li>social support groups/networks (Brown and Harris, 1978)</li>\n<li>mindfulness-based stress reduction strategies (Kabat-Zinn, 1979)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may also address ineffective or unhealthy coping strategies, such as drug taking, alcohol abuse, smoking, overeating, or the use of defence mechanisms.</p>\n<p>Evaluation of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>research supporting or refuting the effectiveness of these strategies</li>\n<li>presenting possible methodological, ethical or cultural considerations</li>\n<li>a comparison and/or contrast of strategies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "stress"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss<strong> two or more</strong> factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between overeating and obesity.</p>\n<p>Factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>physiological factors – for example, genetic predisposition, the role of dopamine, neurobiological explanation of food addiction</li>\n<li>psychological/cognitive factors – for example, low self-esteem, distorted body image, pessimistic thinking patterns, cognitive restraint</li>\n<li>sociocultural factors – for example, sedentary lifestyle, high-fat diet, coping with poverty.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Stunkard et al.’s (1990) study of identical twins reared apart</li>\n<li>theory of compulsive overeating – food craving is related to secretion of dopamine in the brain’s reward circuit</li>\n<li>Volkow et al.’s (2002) fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) study indicating that obese participants had the same deficiency in dopamine receptors as drug addicts</li>\n<li>restraint theory – due to either external triggers or emotional experiences a person is more likely to experience a lack of control that leads to overeating</li>\n<li>Jeffery (2001): an increasingly sedentary way of life leads to more people suffering from the results of obesity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>empirical evidence and related methodological factors</li>\n<li>interaction between biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain <strong>two or more</strong> factors related to the development of substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates do not need to distinguish between factors related to either substance abuse or addictive behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>parental influence (Bauman et al., 1990)</li>\n<li>peer pressure (Unger et al., 2001)</li>\n<li>genetic and biological factors (Overstreet, 2000; Heath and Madden, 1995)</li>\n<li>role of advertising and marketing (Chen et al., 2005; Charlton et al., 1997)</li>\n<li>personality traits (Stein et al., 1987)</li>\n<li>cognitive factors such as expectancies regarding the effects of substances (Hansen et al., 1991; Brown et al., 1980).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not<br/>limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations</li>\n<li>degree of empirical support</li>\n<li>analysis of the interaction between biological, cognitive and cultural factors</li>\n<li>questioning the direction of cause and effect.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons, for cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.</p>\n<p>Cross-cultural differences may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural and societal norms</li>\n<li>different socialization processes in an individual’s upbringing</li>\n<li>cultural dimensions (for example, individualism versus collectivism).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whiting’s (1979) research on the role of extended family</li>\n<li>Bond and Leung’s (1988) research on in-group bias</li>\n<li>Levine et al.’s (2001) studies on cultural differences in helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Whiting and Whiting’s (1975) research into altruism levels in children from industrialized and non-industrialized countries</li>\n<li>Miller et al.’s (1990) study examining cultural norms and moral values on social responsibility.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations</li>\n<li>application of empirical support in relation to a given problem or issue</li>\n<li>alternative explanations of prosocial behaviour</li>\n<li>addressing the issue of universality (for example, kin selection theory) versus cultural differences.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of communication in maintaining human relationships.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies and/or theories related to the role of communication in maintaining human relationships may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the importance of self-disclosure (Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory, 1973)</li>\n<li>the role of micro-expressions (Gottman and Levinson, 1986)</li>\n<li>relationship maintenance through communication (Canary and Dainton, 2003)</li>\n<li>marital type and communication (Weigel and Ballard-Reisch, 1999)</li>\n<li>attributional styles (Bradbury and Fincham, 1990)</li>\n<li>gender-based communication styles (Tannen, 1990).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural biases in research</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>gender differences in communication</li>\n<li>difficulties of carrying out research on communication styles</li>\n<li>ethical concerns when conducting research</li>\n<li>application of research to enhance positive communication in relationships.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Descriptions 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effectiveness of <strong>two</strong> strategies for reducing violence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two strategies for reducing violence.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>a community based strategy (for example, MACS (Metropolitan Area Child Study), 2002; Olweus, 1993)</li>\n<li>group treatment programs, such as the Duluth model (for example, Robertson, 1999)</li>\n<li>zero tolerance anti-bullying programmes (for example, Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld, 2011)</li>\n<li>research into jigsaw classrooms against bullying (for example, Aronson, 1979)</li>\n<li>empathy training (for example, Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982)</li>\n<li>computer based strategies to improve empathy (for example, Figueiredo et al., 2007).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural, gender and ethical issues</li>\n<li>methodological issues</li>\n<li>long-term versus short-term effectiveness</li>\n<li>the difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of a strategy (eg, defining “effectiveness”, lack of research in this area)</li>\n<li>contrary and/or supporting findings or explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "violence"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do sociocultural factors influence behaviour in sport?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.”</p>\n<p>Responses could address individual behaviour or team behaviour in sport. Sociocultural factors could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>culture and motivation in sport (Guest, 2007)</li>\n<li>Western bias in motivational theory (Fontayne, 2001)</li>\n<li>the role of culture on cohesion (Williams, 1999)</li>\n<li>social learning theory’s role in drug use in sport (Anshel, 1998)</li>\n<li>patterns of attribution in varying cultures (Lee, 1996)</li>\n<li>cultural values and level of aggression (Segal et al., 1997)</li>\n<li>social facilitation (Allport, 1920) versus social inhibition (Bond and Titus, 1983)</li>\n<li>drive Theory (Zajonc, 1965)</li>\n<li>social loafing and diffusion of responsibility (Hardy and Latane, 1988).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.13",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain relationships between team cohesion and performance.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account including reasons or causes for relationships between team cohesion and performance.</p>\n<p>The 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).</p>\n<p>Studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Locke and Latham (1985) on the value of process goals and their potential to enhance team performance</li>\n<li>Slater and Sewall (1994) on the bidirectional relationship between team cohesion and performance</li>\n<li>Gould et al., (1999) on US Olympic teams’ cohesiveness and performance</li>\n<li>Grieve et al.’s (2000) study on the unidirectional relationship of team cohesion and performance</li>\n<li>Carron et al.’s (2002) study on the positive effect of team cohesion on performance</li>\n<li>Ingham et al.’s (1974) study on “social loafing” as a result of team cohesion</li>\n<li>Boone et al.’s (1997) study on individual’s perceptions of a team.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender and/or cultural factors</li>\n<li>analysis of negative and/or positive effects</li>\n<li>bi-directionality</li>\n<li>factors other than team cohesion that influence performance</li>\n<li>evaluation of relevant research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.14",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "skill-development-and-performance"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss<strong> two or more</strong> reasons for using drugs in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more reasons for using drugs in sport.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Reasons for using drugs in sport include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>improvement of performance</li>\n<li>prolong a career in sport</li>\n<li>more rapid recovery from injury</li>\n<li>stress reduction</li>\n<li>pain reduction</li>\n<li>increase attractiveness</li>\n<li>peer pressure.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender differences</li>\n<li>bi-directionality</li>\n<li>cultural variations</li>\n<li>empirical findings that support or refute the reasons for using drugs in sport.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Shermer’s (2008) application of game theory (eg prisoner’s dilemma) to drug usage in sport</li>\n<li>Anshel (1998) on the role of social learning theory in drug use in young athletes</li>\n<li>Whitehead et al. (1992) on steroid use in US male high school students</li>\n<li>Newman and Newman (1991) on the role of conformity in steroid use by Canadian adolescent athletes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17M.2.BP.TZ0.15",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "problems-in-sports"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study related to localization of function in the brain.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study related to localization of function in the brain.</p>\n<p><br/>Candidates should clearly identify the specific part of the brain and its function, and use a relevant study to demonstrate localization of function.</p>\n<p><br/>Responses should describe the aim, procedure, findings and/or conclusions of the study.</p>\n<p><br/>Examples of localization include, but are not limited to:<br/>• localization of speech production/understanding<br/>• the role of the hippocampus and memory<br/>• the role of the amygdala in aggression<br/>• the role of the prefrontal lobe in decision-making.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate addresses localization of function without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate describes a study that is not relevant to localization of function, <strong>[0]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.01",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> ethical consideration related to <strong>one</strong> study at the sociocultural level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands below when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>The ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p><br/>Ethical considerations which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<p>• deception<br/>• protection from physical or mental harm<br/>• briefing and debriefing<br/>• right to withdraw from a study<br/>• informed consent<br/>• anonymity/confidentiality.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate describes a study from the sociocultural level of analysis but one ethical consideration is not addressed, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.03",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain how <strong>one</strong> principle that defines the cognitive level of analysis may be demonstrated in <strong>one</strong> example of research (theory or study).</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands on the next page when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Acceptable principles include, but are not limited to:<br/>• cognitive processes can be scientifically investigated<br/>• cognitive processes are important mediators between stimuli and responses<br/>• mental representations guide behaviour<br/>• cognitive processing can be compared to computer function</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate explains a principle without making reference to research, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.02",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine <strong>one</strong> interaction between cognition and physiology in terms of behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><em><br/></em>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Uni-directional interactions include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the role of acetylcholine or beta-amyloid proteins in Alzheimer’s disease (<em>eg</em> Lorenzo <em>et al</em>. 2000)<br/>• the effect of meditation on physiological processes (for example, Davidson, 2004; Luders <em>et al</em>. 2009)<br/>• the role of the hippocampus in memory (for example, Maguire <em>et al</em>. 2000; Milner,1957).</p>\n<p><br/>Bi-directional interactions include, but are not limited to:<br/>• models of emotions (for example, LeDoux’s The Emotional Brain model, Schachter &amp; Singer’s two-factor theory)<br/>• Ramachandran &amp; Hirstein (1998) on perception and pain in phantom limb syndrome<br/>• stress and immune function (for example, Kiecolt-Glaser <em>et al</em>. 1984)<br/>• cognitive appraisal and biological reactions (for example, Lazarus and Folkman, 1975; Speisman, 1964).</p>\n<p><br/>The examination of the interaction may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• the relevance of animal studies<br/>• the issue of reductionism<br/>• the role of information processing in behaviour<br/>• supporting and/or contradicting evidence</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.04",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate schema theory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Bartlett’s (1932) seminal study “War of the Ghosts”<br/>• Loftus and Palmer (1974) on schema processing as a consequence of leading questions<br/>• Anderson and Pichert’s (1978) study on the effect of schema processing on memory encoding and retrieval<br/>• Wynn and Logie’s (1998) study using real-life experiences in schema processing<br/>• Brewer and Treyen’s (1981) “office schema” study<br/>• Piaget’s studies on the reorganization of schema during child development<br/>• studies on gender schemas (for example, Martin <em>et a</em>l., 1995; Bee, 1999).</p>\n<p><br/>Evaluation of the theory may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• the degree of empirical support<br/>• methodological considerations of research used to support the theory<br/>• application to real life (for example, eye witness testimony, stereotypes)<br/>• predictive value (for example, in research studies on stereotyping)<br/>• if the theory has relevance for understanding cognition and/or behaviour (for example, gender or cultural roles)<br/>• Cohen’s (1993) criticism of schema theory regarding the vagueness of the concept.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.05",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> examples of psychological research (theories or studies) on conformity to group norms.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more examples of psychological research (theories or studies) on conformity.</p>\n<p><br/>Theories may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• informational/normative social influence theory<br/>• social comparison theory<br/>• bystander effect<br/>• groupthink</p>\n<p><br/>Studies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Asch (1951, 1952, 1956) testing conformity under non-ambiguous conditions<br/>• Sherif (1935) testing conformity with autokinetic effect illusion<br/>• Crutchfield (1955) on the influence of intellectual competence and personality<br/>• Moscovici <em>et al</em>. (1969, 1976, 1985) on minority influence<br/>• Berry (1967) on the role of cultural dimensions<br/>• Kagitcibasi (1984) on cultural norms and conformity<br/>• Bond and Smith (1996) on changes over time and cross-cultural differences.</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• methodological, cultural, ethical and gender considerations<br/>• contrary explanations and/or findings<br/>• application of the theory and/or empirical findings.</p>\n<p><br/>If research addressing obedience, rather than conformity, is discussed, no marks should be awarded for this discussion.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.1.BP.TZ0.06",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the relationship between etiology and therapeutic approach(es) in relation to <strong>one</strong> disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review about the link between etiology and therapeutic approach.</p>\n<p><br/>Anxiety disorders, affective disorders and eating disorders will most likely be presented. It is, however, acceptable to use other examples of disorders.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural considerations<br/>• empirical evidence<br/>• methodological considerations of research studies<br/>• gender considerations related to the impact that the therapeutic approach may have<br/>• 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<br/>• in reality, practitioners may disregard the link to etiology in choice of treatment.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the first response.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.01",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "implementing-treatment"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss cultural variations in the <strong>prevalence</strong> of psychological disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes a range of cultural variations in the prevalence of disorders.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Responses may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• 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)<br/>• addressing cultural factors that seem to increase the risk of developing affective or eating disorders<br/>• reference to evidence that with increasing Westernization, rates of certain disorders tend to increase<br/>• addressing changes in diagnostic screening which help mental health professions become more culturally aware in their diagnoses<br/>• the prevalence of culture-bound disorders<br/>• the interaction between biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors<br/>• some prevalence rates are consistent across cultures, for example, schizophrenia<br/>• how emic versus etic approaches affect prevalence rates.</p>\n<p><br/>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Okulate <em>et al</em>. (2004) – core symptoms of depression are shared in different cultures<br/>• Jaeger <em>et al</em>. (2002) – body dissatisfaction suggesting significant differences between cultures<br/>• Dutton (2009) – cultural variations in prevalence of major depression could be due to cultural differences in stress, standard of living and reporting bias.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.02",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "psychological-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two or more</strong> ethical considerations in diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more ethical considerations in diagnosis.</p>\n<p><br/>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• consequences of an incorrect diagnosis (for example, self-fulfilling prophecies)<br/>• effects of labelling<br/>• the possibility of stigmatization once a client is diagnosed<br/>• confidentiality of diagnosis<br/>• over-diagnosis of certain disorders (for example, in relation to gender and culture)<br/>• bias in diagnosis.</p>\n<p><br/>Responses may include, but are not limited to, the following theories and studies:<br/>• Scheff (1966): labelling theory applied to the term “mentally ill”<br/>• Thoits (1985) self-labelling processes in mental illness<br/>• Broverman <em>et al</em>. (1970): gender bias in diagnosis<br/>• Rosenhan <em>et a</em>l. (1973): being sane in insane places<br/>• Szasz's claim that most mental disorders should be considered as problems in living.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only one ethical consideration in diagnosis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.03",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "concepts-and-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do social and/or environmental variables affect cognitive development?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The 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”.</p>\n<p><br/>The variables studied do not have to be specifically identified as social or environmental as they are arguably very much related.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Variables may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• interactions with parents, siblings, peers, teachers and other significant figures (for example, Farah <em>et al</em>., 2008; Clark, 1993; Tizard, 1982)<br/>• cultures differ in the kinds of cognitive skills that are valued and consequently encouraged and developed (Vygotsky, 1978; Cole and Scribner, 1974)<br/>• children living in poverty are more likely to suffer from learning disabilities and developmental delays (for example, Rutter’s studies; Krugman, 2008; Schoon <em>et al</em>, 2002)<br/>• malnutrition can influence cognitive development (Bhoomika <em>et al</em>., 2008)<br/>• early nutritional supplements in the form of protein and increased calories can have positive long-term consequences for cognitive development (Pollitt, 1995).</p>\n<p><br/>Animal studies may be used to support the answer as long as they are explicitly linked to human cognitive development.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate addresses how social/environmental factors influence attachment and emotional development the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.04",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> strategies to build resilience.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two strategies to build resilience.</p>\n<p>It is appropriate for candidates to address models, studies and theories related to resilience in order to provide a discussion of strategies to build resilience.</p>\n<p><br/>Strategies to build resilience may include but are not limited to:<br/>• social programmes for youth such as Head Start or the Big Brothers Big Sisters Programme (Tierney <em>et al</em>., 1985)<br/>• parent education programmes (Sanders <em>et al</em>., 2002)<br/>• programmes developing skills to protect and promote well-being (for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and social skills training)<br/>• stress inoculation training<br/>• programmes to develop psychological strengths (for example, anger management).</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include but is not limited to:<br/>• the importance of age and/or maturity of the individual<br/>• the danger of a reductionist approach as resilience is complex and multiple ways of promoting it should be proposed<br/>• the effectiveness of the strategies<br/>• methodological, cultural and gender considerations<br/>• supporting and contradicting theories and findings of studies.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only one strategy, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.05",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Contrast <strong>two</strong> examples of psychological research (theories or studies) relevant to developmental psychology.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p><br/>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).</p>\n<p><br/>Although candidates are more likely to contrast two theories or two studies, it is acceptable to contrast a theory and a study.</p>\n<p><br/>Research may include but are not limited to:<br/>• theories or studies on cognitive development (<em>eg</em> Piaget, Vygotsky, Kohlberg, Bruner)<br/>• identity research (<em>eg</em> Erikson, Marcia, Elkind, Coleman)<br/>• research on attachment (<em>eg</em> Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hazan and Shaver)<br/>• theories or studies on resilience (<em>eg</em> Cyrulnik, Werner)<br/>• gender role theories or studies (<em>eg</em> Kohlberg, Bem, Mead).</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Differences between the research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• contrary findings or explanations<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• applications of the empirical findings or theory such as the impact on education<br/>• methodological and ethical considerations<br/>• stages versus continuous process</p>\n<p><br/>Animal studies may be used to support the answer as long as they are explicitly linked to human developmental psychology.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[6]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B,critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.06",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss social and/or psychological aspects of stress.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Kemeny <em>et al</em>.’s (2005) social self-preservation theory<br/>• Evans and Kim’s (2007) or Fernald and Gunnar’s (2008) studies on the relationship between poverty and stress<br/>• Taylor<em> et al</em>.’s (2000) theory (tend and befriend) and related studies on gender-specific responses to stress<br/>• O’Driscoll and Cooper’s (1994) study on coping with work-related stress.<br/>• Kamen and Seligman’s (1987) study on attributional style and health levels<br/>• Speisman <em>et al</em>.’s (1964) study on the role of appraisal in stress experience<br/>• Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress</p>\n<p><br/>Aspects of stress may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• stress in the workplace<br/>• coping strategies<br/>• social support<br/>• mindfulness-based stress reduction<br/>• causes, consequences and/or strategies for dealing with stress.</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• application of research<br/>• methodological and ethical considerations<br/>• difficulties in distinguishing between social and psychological aspects of stress<br/>• empirical and/or contrary findings or explanations.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.07",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "stress"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effectiveness of <strong>one or more</strong> health promotion strategies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review regarding the effectiveness of one or more health promotion strategies.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Relevant health promotion strategies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the Victoria (Australia) campaign, “Go for your life” promoting healthy eating and exercise in schools (2004)<br/>• the Florida (US) campaign, “TRUTH” an anti-smoking campaign arranged by and aimed at adolescents (1998–1999)<br/>• the Canadian community-based peer intervention programme to prevent pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol (Carr, 1994)<br/>• social learning theory (for example, the Sabido method to encourage safe sex practices).</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• challenges in measuring outcomes of strategies and campaigns<br/>• conditions under which the strategy may be employed<br/>• cultural and ethical considerations<br/>• empirical evidence<br/>• comparison and/or contrast of health promotion strategies</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.08",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-promotion"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> prevention strategies for obesity.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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:<br/>• government intervention programmes, such as requiring labelling of all food products or imposing zoning laws for better access to healthy food markets (Ashe<em> et al</em>., 2003)<br/>• campaigns promoting healthy eating (Golan <em>et al.</em>, 1998)<br/>• exercise awareness campaigns (Huhman <em>et al</em>., 2005)<br/>• national health campaigns, such as the British Nutrition Foundation’s eatwell plate which emphasizes healthy eating (2007).</p>\n<p><br/>Evaluation of the selected strategies may include but is not limited to:<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• empirical and/or contrary findings or explanations<br/>• the effectiveness of prevention strategies (and the difficulty in determining the effectiveness)<br/>• multifaceted approaches to obesity.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.09",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do biological factors influence human relationships?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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”.</p>\n<p><br/>Candidates may address any aspect(s) of the psychology of human relationships (for example, social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and/or violence).</p>\n<p><br/>Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• 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)<br/>• hormonal and/or neurotransmitter influence on trust and bonding (for example, Marazziti and Canale, 2004; Bradford and McLean, 1984)<br/>• brain damage or disease influencing violent behaviour (for example, Soyka, Graz, Bottlender <em>et al</em>. 2007; Grafman, <em>et al</em>., 1996)<br/>• brain activity influencing violence (for example, Raine, 1997)<br/>• genetic factors in violent behaviour (for example, the warrior gene – MAOI (monoamine oxidase inhibitors).</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two or more</strong> factors influencing bystanderism.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors influencing bystanderism.<br/>Bystanderism can be defined as the tendency of a person not to intervene despite awareness of another person’s need.</p>\n<p><br/>Factors may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the role of the number of people available to help (for example, diffusion of responsibility, Latané and Darley, 1968)<br/>• the informational social influence (for example, pluralistic ignorance, Latané and Darley, 1968)<br/>• cognitive dissonance and arousal (for example, Piliavin, 1981)<br/>• the cost benefit analysis of helping (for example, Piliavin <em>et al</em>., 1969)<br/>• personality and/or social norms (for example, Oliner and Oliner, 1989)<br/>• cultural norms (for example, Levin, 1990)<br/>• fear of making a social blunder – social apprehension (for example, Shotland and Straw, 1976)<br/>• the time factor (for example, good Samaritan study, Darley and Batson, 1973).</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural considerations<br/>• role of historical context<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• empirical evidence<br/>• arguments for the existence of altruism<br/>• the possibility of implementing strategies for reducing bystanderism.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Explanations may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• social identity theory (for example, Maass, 2003)<br/>• social learning theory (for example, Bandura, 1961)<br/>• negative social schemas (for example, Bradshaw, 2004)<br/>• deindividuation (for example, Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb, 1952)<br/>• social interaction approach (for example, Tedeschi and Felson, 1994)<br/>• subculture of violence theory/Culture of Honour (for example, Nisbett and Cohen,1996).</p>\n<p><br/>Evaluation of the sociocultural explanation(s) may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural and/or gender considerations<br/>• application of the explanations<br/>• empirical findings that support or refute the explanation<br/>• comparison/contrast to other explanations.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "violence"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain the role of goal-setting in the motivation of individuals engaged in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• the role of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (for example, Vallerand and Losier, 1999)<br/>• achievement goal theory (for example, Duda and Hall, 2001)<br/>• the relationship between goal-setting and performance (for example, Weinbert <em>et al</em>., 1994)<br/>• the role of outcome, performance, and process goals (for example, Steinberg <em>et al</em>., 2000)<br/>• the relationship between goals and perception of success in children engaged in sport (for example, Duda <em>et al.</em>, 1998)<br/>• SMART – components of effective goal setting (for example, Smith, 1994)<br/>• ego orientation versus task orientation (for example, Elliot and Dweck, 1988)<br/>• the role of goal-setting in regulating performance and increasing self-efficacy (for example, Locke and Latham, 1981; 2006)</p>\n<p><br/>Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking could include:<br/>• analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations<br/>• application of empirical support in relation to the role of goal-setting<br/>• using evidence from studies that support or disconfirm the importance of the role of goal-setting<br/>• questioning the direction of cause and effect.</p>\n<p><br/>Descriptions of research on goal-setting in motivation without a link to motivation in sport should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and understanding, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.13",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-motivation"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two or more</strong> effects of drug use in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Effects of drug use may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• physical effects such as quicker healing from injury, weight gain, liver/kidney damage, increased risk of heart damage/stroke, weakened tendons<br/>• psychological effects such as increased aggression, increased risk of mental illness, mood swings (including “roid rage” as a result of steroid use)<br/>• addiction and withdrawal symptoms<br/>• masculinization and feminization of athletes<br/>• enhanced performance<br/>• the masking of pain, leading to greater injury.</p>\n<p><br/>Studies related to effects of drug use in sport could include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Liv <em>et al</em>. (2008) on unclear results of use of human growth hormone on athletic performance<br/>• McGrath and Cowan (2008) on drug use in sport including effect on performance and detrimental effects<br/>• Tokish <em>et al</em>. (2004) on performance and side effects of performance enhancing drugs<br/>• Pope and Katz (1988) on steroid use and increased mood disorders<br/>• Yates <em>et al</em>. (1992) on steroid use and increased aggression<br/>• Brower <em>et al</em>. (1991) on steroid use leading to addiction.</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• gender considerations<br/>• cultural variations<br/>• contrary and/or supporting findings or explanations<br/>• application of research<br/>• ethical issues.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>If a candidate discusses only one effect of drug use in sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.14",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "problems-in-sports"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss athlete response to chronic injury.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of athlete response to chronic injury.</p>\n<p><br/>Research with regard to chronic injury may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Kubler-Ross’s model of rehabilitation (and related research such as Hardy and Crace, 1990; Brewer, 1994)<br/>• coping in a “culture of risk” (for example, Nixon, 1992)<br/>• identity loss in response to injury (for example, Petipas and Danish, 1995)<br/>• avoidance coping (for example, Shuer <em>et al</em>., 1997)<br/>• information-processing model of injury response (for example, Udry <em>et al</em>., 1997)<br/>• cognitive appraisal model and coping (for example, Wiese-Bjornstall, 1998)</p>\n<p><br/>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural considerations<br/>• gender considerations<br/>• ethical considerations of continued performance after injury<br/>• contrary and/or supporting findings or explanations<br/>• methodological considerations.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.2.BP.TZ0.15",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "problems-in-sports"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p><br/><br/>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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.</p>\n<p>The inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:</p>\n<p>• 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.</p>\n<p>• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of semi-structured interviews in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p><br/>Semi-structured interviews normally use a combination of closed and open-ended questions and the interview is often more informal and conversational in nature.</p>\n<p><br/>Reasons for choosing the semi-structured interview in this study could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<p>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.3.HL.TZ0.01",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "discuss-the-use-of-semi-structured-interview-in-this-study"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p><br/><br/>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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.</p>\n<p>The inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:</p>\n<p>• 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.</p>\n<p>• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe how the researcher in this study could use inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p><br/>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:</p>\n<p>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• The researcher reads and rereads the transcript many times until the data is saturated and no more categories/themes can be found.<br/>• Constructing a summary table of the two higher-order themes mentioned in the stimulus material. (social and psychological)<br/>• Connecting the subordinate themes with relevant quotations from women in the study to support the choice of each theme.<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.3.HL.TZ0.02",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-how-researchers-use-inductive-content-analysis-(thematic-analysis)-on-interview-transcripts"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p><br/><br/>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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The researcher carried out the individual semi-structured interviews herself and the participants gave her permission to audio-record the interviews.</p>\n<p>The inductive content analysis of the transcripts revealed two higher-order themes with related lower-order themes:</p>\n<p>• 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.</p>\n<p>• Psychological: Feelings of guilt, loneliness and anxiety as well as fear of taking a pregnancy test or telling the husband about the negative results.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain the importance of establishing credibility in qualitative research and how this was done in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.</em></p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>Explanations related to establishing credibility in this study could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<p>• 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.<br/>• The researcher asked participants to verify the results when she had finished analysis (credibility check).<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p><br/>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.</p>\n<p><br/>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 <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "17N.3.HL.TZ0.03",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-the-importance-of-credibility-in-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Biological level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> ethical consideration related to <strong>one</strong> study at the biological level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.</p>\n<p>The ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• obtaining informed consent<br/>• avoiding harm or suffering of participants<br/>• the use of animals as subjects<br/>• the use of deception<br/>• maintaining anonymity<br/>• the right to withdraw<br/>• the need for debriefing.</p>\n<p>The focus of the response should be on the ethical consideration and not on the description of a study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate study, but there is no link to an ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an ethical consideration but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Cognitive level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, describe how <strong>one</strong> particular research method is used at the cognitive level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Description 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.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[6]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes one appropriate study without reference to one research method, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one research method, credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Sociocultural level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, describe <strong>one</strong> error in attribution.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one error in attribution with reference to one study.</p>\n<p>Appropriate attribution errors may include but are not limited to:<br/>• fundamental attribution error (Ross <em>et al</em>. (1977); Jones and Harris (1967))<br/>• defensive attribution bias (Walster (1966); Brickman <em>et al</em>. (1975))<br/>• actor–observer bias (Storms (1973); Nisbett <em>et al</em>. (1973))<br/>• illusory correlation (Hamilton and Gifford (1974))<br/>• self-serving bias (Johnson <em>et al</em>. (1964); Lau and Russel (1980))<br/>• modesty bias (Fahr, Dobbins and Cheng (1991); Kashima and Triandis (1986))</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate study without describing one error in attribution, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes one error in attribution without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "sociocultural-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine <strong>one</strong> evolutionary explanation of behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Evolutionary theory is based on assumptions such as, but not limited to, the following:<br/>• the basic principles of natural selection (adaptation)<br/>• human behaviours may be inherited<br/>• the mechanism of sexual selection.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address one or more assumptions in responding to this question.</p>\n<p>Behaviours that may be addressed include, but are not limited to:<br/>• human mating behaviours (Buss, 1990)<br/>• emotional behaviour (for example, disgust, Fessler, 2006; universality of emotional expressions, Ekman and       Friesen, 1971)<br/>• dysfunctional behaviour (for example, depression, Andrews and Thompson, 2009; phobias, Seligman, 1971)<br/>• altruism (Dawkins, 1976).</p>\n<p>Research that refers only to genetics without a clear link to one evolutionary explanation of behaviour should not receive credit.</p>\n<p>In order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:<br/>• underlying assumptions<br/>• evidence in support of the explanation<br/>• strengths or limitations of the explanation<br/>• contrary explanations of behaviour.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the reliability of <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• that human memory is reconstructive and remembering is not simply retrieving a fully encoded event (Loftus and Palmer, 1974; Bartlett, 1932)<br/>• that human memory may be reliable (Yuille and Cutshall, 1986; Brown and Kulik, 1977)<br/>• the influence of emotion on memory (Brown and Kulik, 1977)<br/>• the impact of environmental stimuli on perception (carpentered world hypothesis)<br/>• the role of heuristics in decision-making may lead to errors in judgement (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974).</p>\n<p>Discussion of the reliability of the cognitive process may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• degree of empirical support<br/>• contrary findings or explanations<br/>• methodological and/or cultural considerations<br/>• application to real life, for example, eye witness testimony.</p>\n<p>Whichever cognitive process is selected, the focus of the response should be on a discussion of its reliability.</p>\n<p>If the reliability of more than one cognitive process is discussed, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss social identity theory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of social identity theory.</p>\n<p>Responses should present, with reference to relevant studies, the key concepts of the social identity theory such as:<br/>• social categorization (ingroup/outgroup)<br/>• social identification<br/>• social comparison<br/>• positive distinctiveness.</p>\n<p>Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:<br/>• Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities<br/>• Sherif <em>et al</em>.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)<br/>• Cialdini <em>et al</em>.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)<br/>• Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)<br/>• Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• the effectiveness of the theory in explaining social identity and inter-group behaviour<br/>• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research<br/>• methodological, cultural and gender considerations<br/>• contrary findings or explanations<br/>• applications of the theory.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Biological level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> ethical consideration related to <strong>one</strong> study at the biological level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one ethical consideration related to one study at the biological level of analysis.</p>\n<p>The ethical consideration may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• obtaining informed consent<br/>• avoiding harm or suffering of participants<br/>• the use of animals as subjects<br/>• the use of deception<br/>• maintaining anonymity<br/>• the right to withdraw<br/>• the need for debriefing.</p>\n<p>The focus of the response should be on the ethical consideration and not on the description of a study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should only be given to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate study, but there is no link to an ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an ethical consideration but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.1",
    "topics": [],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Cognitive level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>Describe how <strong>one</strong> social or cultural factor affects <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one social or cultural factor affects one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>As the concepts of social and cultural factors are arguably very much related, a distinction is not necessary in the response.</p>\n<p>Cognitive processes may include but are not limited to:<br/>• memory<br/>• perception<br/>• attention<br/>• language<br/>• decision-making.</p>\n<p>Appropriate factors include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the impact of culture on schemas and memory (Bartlett, 1932)<br/>• the effect of poverty on attention, working memory and perception<br/>• the effects of social identity on the formation of flashbulb memories<br/>• the role of schooling in memory strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974)<br/>• the impact of environmental stimuli on perception (carpentered world hypothesis)<br/>• the role of short-term and long-term orientation on decision-making (Chen, 2005).</p>\n<p>Additional factors may include institutionalization, deprivation and stereotypes/stereotype threat.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one social or cultural factor, credit should be given only to the first factor.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first process.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes a social or cultural factor making no explicit link to a cognitive process, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Sociocultural level of analysis</strong></p>\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, describe <strong>one</strong> error in attribution.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one error in attribution with reference to one study.</p>\n<p>Appropriate attribution errors may include but are not limited to:<br/>• fundamental attribution error (Ross <em>et al</em>. (1977); Jones and Harris (1967))<br/>• defensive attribution bias (Walster (1966); Brickman <em>et al</em>. (1975))<br/>• actor–observer bias (Storms (1973); Nisbett <em>et al</em>. (1973))<br/>• illusory correlation (Hamilton and Gifford (1974))<br/>• self-serving bias (Johnson <em>et al</em>. (1964); Lau and Russel (1980))<br/>• modesty bias (Fahr, Dobbins and Cheng (1991); Kashima and Triandis (1986))</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate study without describing one error in attribution, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes one error in attribution without making reference to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "sociocultural-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of genetic inheritance on behaviour.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of relevant studies include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Heston’s (1966), Gottesman’s (1991) and Kety <em>et al</em>.’s (1975) studies examining the role of genetic inheritance in schizophrenia<br/>• Kendler <em>et al</em>. (2006), Caspi <em>et al</em>. (2003) and Nurnberger and Gershon (1982) on the role of genetic inheritance in depression<br/>• Garn et al. (1981) and Stunkard <em>et al</em>. (1990) on the role of genetic inheritance in obesity<br/>• Bouchard <em>et al</em>. (1990), Scarr and Weinberg (1977), and Plomin and Petrill (1977) on the role of genetic inheritance in intelligence.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> theory of how emotion may affect <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one theory demonstrating the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Responses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion, such as attention, perception, memory or decision-making.</p>\n<p>Examples of theories include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Brown and Kulik’s flashbulb memory theory<br/>• Bower’s theory of state-dependent cues<br/>• DaMasio’s Somatic Marker Hypothesis</p>\n<p>Discussion of the selected theory includes, but is not limited to:<br/>• degree of empirical support<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• contrary findings or explanations<br/>• validity of the concepts<br/>• application and/or usefulness of the empirical findings.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognition-and-emotion"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>two</strong> compliance techniques.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Compliance techniques that are addressed may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• reciprocity (Lynne &amp; McCall,1998; Tiger &amp; Fox, 1989)<br/>• foot-in-the-door (Petrova, 2007; Sherman, 1980; Freedman &amp; Fraser, 1966)<br/>• door-in-the-face (Gueguen &amp; Meineri, 2011; Cialdini, 1975)<br/>• low-balling (Burger &amp; Cornelius, 2003; Palak, 1980).</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• efficacy of the technique<br/>• levels of compliance affected by factors such as liking, authority, <em>etc</em><br/>• the role of cognitive dissonance<br/>• the need for social acceptance<br/>• the role of goal gradients<br/>• methodological and ethical considerations<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• contrary findings or explanations.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses more than two compliance techniques, credit should be given only to the first two compliance techniques.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one compliance technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.1.BP.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-norms"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Abnormal psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Discuss concepts of normality and abnormality.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review that includes various concepts of normality and abnormality.</p>\n<p>Concepts of normality and abnormality may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the mental health criterion/model<br/>• the statistical criterion/model<br/>• abnormality as mental illness (medical model)<br/>• the psychoanalytic explanation of the concept of abnormality<br/>• the cognitive explanation of the concept of abnormality<br/>• deviation from social and cultural norms.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cross-cultural issues<br/>• gender biases<br/>• supporting or contradicting evidence<br/>• the issue of labelling<br/>• changing norms on perceptions of normality (for example, changing views on homosexuality or political dissent)<br/>• difficulties in defining normality/abnormality<br/>• difficulties in diagnosing normality/abnormality.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Rosenhan and Seligman (1984) – seven criteria of abnormality<br/>• Jahoda (1958) – six characteristics of mental health<br/>• Szasz (1962) – mental disorders as “problems in living”<br/>• Bolton (1999) – cultural issues in overdiagnosis.</p>\n<p>Although studies illustrating difficulty in diagnosis (<em>eg</em> 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "concepts-and-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Abnormal psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>one or more</strong> examples of an eclectic approach to treatment.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more examples of an eclectic approach to treatment.</p>\n<p>An 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.</p>\n<p>Many examples of eclectic approaches to treatment are available, for example:<br/>• Sharp <em>et al</em>.‘s (1999) study of drug therapy combined with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)<br/>• Pampallona’s (2004) analysis of the relative effectiveness of drug therapy versus combined treatment<br/>• Elkin <em>et al</em>.’s (1989) study of the relative effectiveness of interpersonal therapy (IPT), CBT, drugs and placebo<br/>• McDermut <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) study of group therapy versus CBT.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• strengths of each separate approach are combined so that potential limitations of a specific approach are decreased<br/>• the overall treatment is tailored to the specific needs of the client<br/>• it provides flexibility in treatment (for example, many patients suffer from several disorders at the same time)<br/>• overall efficacy (lower relapse rates)<br/>• treatment can be complex for one clinician to manage<br/>• there are very few empirical studies on long-term effectiveness and more research is needed<br/>• methodological, cultural and ethical considerations<br/>• comparing the effectiveness of an eclectic approach to treatment to a singular approach.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "implementing-treatment"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Abnormal psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Explain, with reference to psychological research, <strong>two</strong> etiologies of <strong>one</strong> anxiety, affective <strong>or</strong> eating disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Anxiety 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).</p>\n<p>Examples of how candidates may show evidence of critical thinking could include, but are not limited to:<br/>• analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations related to the studies<br/>• application of empirical support in relation to the causes of the disorder<br/>• using evidence from studies that support or disconfirm the explanation/etiology of one disorder<br/>• analysis of the interaction between biological, cognitive and cultural factors<br/>• addressing the issue of universality versus cultural differences<br/>• questioning the direction of cause and effect.</p>\n<p>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 <strong>[0]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If a candidate approaches this question without referring to a specific disorder, then the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains etiologies of more than one disorder, credit should be given only to the first disorder.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains only one etiology of a disorder, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "psychological-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Developmental psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Examine potential effects of deprivation and/or trauma in childhood on later development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Rutter <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) and Rutter’s (1981) studies on the consequences of deprivation<br/>• case study of Genie<br/>• Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis<br/>• Cockett and Tripp’s (1994) study on long-term attachment deprivation effects<br/>• Cyrulnik’s theory of resilience<br/>• Koluchova’s case study showing the possibility to reverse the effects of deprivation<br/>• Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (2004) theory on the positive aspects emerging from the struggle with trauma.</p>\n<p>In order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:<br/>• research explaining how resilience and protective factors reduce the impact of deprivation or trauma in childhood<br/>• biological, cognitive or sociocultural factors in relation to potential effects of deprivation or trauma in childhood on later development<br/>• traditional deterministic theories of deprivation<br/>• research showing that deprivation or trauma may lead to positive growth<br/>• short-term versus long-term effects of deprivation or trauma<br/>• methodological and ethical considerations.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Developmental psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) into adolescence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Erikson’s identity theory<br/>• Coleman’s focal theory<br/>• Baethge’s cultural theory<br/>• Lewin’s field theory.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Marcia’s studies on the different types of identity status<br/>• Mead’s anthropological studies<br/>• Rutter <em>et al</em>.’s studies on the relationships between adolescents and their parents<br/>• Steinberg’s studies on parent–adolescent conflicts<br/>• Condon’s (1987) study challenging the cross-cultural validity of Erikson’s theory<br/>• Ferron’s (1997) cross-cultural study on body image in adolescence.<br/>• studies related to teenage brain development.</p>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• appropriateness of concepts in explaining adolescence<br/>• appropriateness of explanation of individual differences<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• supporting and contradicting evidence<br/>• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research<br/>• the applications of the research<br/>• relevance of stage versus continuous development.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p>Theories 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Developmental psychology</strong></p>\n<p>To what extent does attachment in childhood play a role in the formation of relationships later in life?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that attachment in childhood has on relationships later in life.</p>\n<p>It 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”.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• Pratt and Norris (1994) – positive correlation between early attachment relationships and reports of current social relationships<br/>• Hazan and Shaver (1987) – similarities between romantic love as experienced by adults and the characteristics of attachment<br/>• Rossi and Rossi (1990) – people who grew up in cohesive families tended to establish positive relationships with their own partners<br/>• 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<br/>• Bowlby’s research on how maternal deprivation can affect an individual later in life.</p>\n<p>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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Health psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Discuss physiological and/or social aspects of stress.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of physiological and/or social aspects of stress.</p>\n<p>Candidates can use research that deals with either or both the physiological and social aspects of stress.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Kiecolt-Glaser <em>et al</em>.’s (1984) study on how exam stress influences the immune system<br/>• Steptoe and Marmot’s (2003) Whitehall study on the relationship between workplace stress and the risk of heart disease<br/>• Sapolsky (2005) on the influence of social hierarchy on primate health<br/>• Fernald and Gunnar’s (2008) or Evans and Kim’s (2007) studies on the relationship between poverty and stress<br/>• Taylor <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study on gender differences in stress<br/>• O’Driscoll and Cooper’s (1994) study on coping with work-related stress.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• conditions under which stress may be observed and/or measured<br/>• methodological concerns in measuring aspects of stress<br/>• risk factors associated with socio-economic status.</p>\n<p>Responses may discuss either physiological or social aspects of stress or may discuss both aspects of stress. Either approach is equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "stress"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Health psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Examine <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> models and/or theories of health promotion.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Models/theories may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• the health belief model (HBM)<br/>• the stages of change model<br/>• 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).</p>\n<p>Examination of the chosen models and/or theories may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural or gender considerations<br/>• ethical considerations<br/>• application of the empirical findings<br/>• competing theories or studies<br/>• the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of the health promotion with regard to models/theories.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-promotion"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Health psychology</strong></p>\n<p>To what extent do biological factors influence health-related behaviour?<br/><br/></p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence of biological factors on health-related behaviour.</p>\n<p>Stress, 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.</p>\n<p>Biological factors may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• evolutionary explanations<br/>• genetic predisposition<br/>• the biological effects of drug treatment for addictive behaviour<br/>• the neurobiology of food addiction (for example, Volkow <em>et al</em>., 2002).</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address sociocultural and/or cognitive factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Psychology of human relationships</strong></p>\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> social and/or cultural origins of attraction.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more social/cultural explanations for the origin of attraction.</p>\n<p>Social/cultural origins of attraction may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Proximity factor – proximity increases chances for interaction which in turn increases familiarity. Mere exposure effect is enough to increase liking (Zajonc, 1968)<br/>• Cultural factors play a role in inducing attraction (for example, Buss <em>et al</em>., 1990) - values of chastity, youth, good financial prospects are differently rated in different parts of the world. <br/>• Reciprocity - people tend to like others who reciprocate their liking <br/> • 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<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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)<br/>• Similarity (for example social class, cultural background, religion, ethnicity).</p>\n<p>Discussion of social/cultural explanations of attraction may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• gender considerations<br/>• supporting or contradictory empirical evidence<br/>• alternative explanations of attraction, such as biological and/or cognitive.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Psychology of human relationships</strong></p>\n<p>Evaluate <strong>two</strong> examples of research (theories and/or studies) investigating the role of communication in maintaining relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of research may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• gender or cultural differences in communication patterns (for example, Tannen, 1990)<br/>• the role of attribution in relationships (for example, Bradbury and Fincham, 1992)<br/>• the value of disclosure (for example, social penetration theory)<br/>• the role of communication of emotions in maintaining relationships (for example, Gottman and Levenson, 1986)<br/>• studies on marital satisfaction (for example, Fincham, 2004).</p>\n<p>Evaluation of the research may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• cultural and gender considerations<br/>• the accuracy and clarity of the concepts<br/>• supporting and/or contradictory evidence<br/>• alternative explanations<br/>• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research<br/>• the applications of the empirical findings.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate evaluates only one theory/study, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Psychology of human relationships</strong></p>\n<p>To what extent do sociocultural factors influence human relationships?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors that affect human relationships.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address one or all areas of the option: social responsibility, interpersonal relationships and/or violence.</p>\n<p>Factors which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:<br/>• gender and cultural norms (for example, the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships, violence, or perception of attractiveness)<br/>• proximity<br/>• modelling<br/>• social identity<br/>• similarity<br/>• familiarity.</p>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or cognitive factors in order to address the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Studies 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Sport psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Evaluate <strong>two or more</strong> techniques for skill development used in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Techniques for skill development may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• massed practice vs. distributed practice (<em>e.g.</em> repetition), for example Wickelgren (1981); Fitts and Posner (1967); Singer (1965)<br/>• mental imagery research, for example Issac (1992); Baroga (1973); Rushall (1970)<br/>• research on self-talk, for example Araki <em>et al</em>. (2006); Landin and Herbert (1999); Martin <em>et al</em>. (1995).</p>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:<br/>• cultural or gender considerations<br/>• empirical findings<br/>• conditions under which the findings may be applied<br/>• comparison to other techniques<br/>• methodological considerations<br/>• the effectiveness of the techniques.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only evaluates one technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.13",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "skill-development-and-performance"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Sport psychology</strong></p>\n<p>To what extent does the role of coaches influence individual and/or team behaviour in sport?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Coaches can have a positive or negative effect on the athletes they coach.</p>\n<p>Candidates may consider topics such as, but not limited to:<br/>• the role of the coach with regard to the motivation of the athlete<br/>• self-efficacy<br/>• goal-setting<br/>• the role of feedback in improving performance<br/>• the role of coaches in team cohesion<br/>• the role of coaches’ expectations in the performance of athletes.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>It 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”.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Garcia-Bengoechea (2003) on peers’ versus coaches’ effect on athlete motivation<br/>• Jowett and Cockerill (2003) on coaches’ characteristics and successful Olympic swimmers<br/>• Duda and Pensgaard (2002) on improving intrinsic motivation<br/>• Chase <em>et al</em>. (1997) on coaches’ sense of self-efficacy and team performance<br/>• Slavin (1965) on facilitating a community of cooperative learners<br/>• Horn and Lox (1993) on the role of coaches’ expectations on athlete performance<br/>• Alfermann <em>et al</em>. (2005) on coaches’ influence on skill development in athletes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.14",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "skill-development-and-performance"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><strong>Sport psychology</strong></p>\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> models/theories of burnout in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Models/theories on burnout include, but are not limited to:<br/>• Smith’s (1986) cognitive affective model<br/>• Meichenbaum’s (1985) stress inoculation theory (SIT)<br/>• Raedeke’s (2002) study of role conflict and other factors of burnout<br/>• Maslasch and Jackson’s (1984) model of burnout.</p>\n<p>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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.2.BP.TZ0.15",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "problems-in-sports"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Extreme 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Five 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">A 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).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:<br/>• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits<br/>• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport<br/>• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants<br/>• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind<br/>• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”<br/>• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; text-align: right;\">Carla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in<br/><em>Journal of Health Psychology</em>, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.<br/>Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain <strong>two or more</strong> ethical considerations relevant to this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks.</p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons, for the relevance of two or more ethical considerations to the study.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Relevant ethical considerations in this study could include, but are not limited to:<br/>• <strong>Anonymity/confidentiality</strong>: 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.<br/>• <strong>Research ethics committee</strong>: 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 (<em>eg</em> 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.<br/>• <strong>Informed consent</strong>: 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.<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains only one ethical consideration, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "discuss-ethical-considerations-in-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Extreme 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Five 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">A 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).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:<br/>• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits<br/>• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport<br/>• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants<br/>• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind<br/>• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”<br/>• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; text-align: right;\">Carla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in<br/><em>Journal of Health Psychology</em>, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.<br/>Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of semi-structured interview in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Semi-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.</p>\n<p>Discussion related to reasons for choosing the semi-structured interview in this study could include, but is not limited to:<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Responses may refer to other research methods and be credited for this as long as the focus of the response is on semi-structured interviews.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluate-semi‑structured-focus-group-and-narrative-interviews"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a research article that addresses participants’ motivation to participate in “extreme sports”.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Extreme 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The aim of this qualitative study was to explore motivations for taking part in sky diving or mountaineering (mountain climbing).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Five 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">A 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).</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The inductive content analysis of the transcripts showed the following themes related to motivation:<br/>• the challenge of pushing themselves beyond their existing mental and physical limits<br/>• striving for achievement and mastery of their sport<br/>• the feeling of getting better at their sport worked as a reward for the participants<br/>• the feeling of “being in the present” and clearing all other thoughts from their mind<br/>• experiencing pleasurable feelings such as excitement or “adrenaline rush”<br/>• accepting suffering and physical injury as part of the experience of doing extreme sports.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; text-align: right;\">Carla Willig, A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’ in<br/><em>Journal of Health Psychology</em>, vol 13(5), pp. 698-699, copyright © 2008 by SAGE Publications.<br/>Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe how researchers in this study could use inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts. </p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>In 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:<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.<br/>• The different themes should be connected with relevant quotations from the eight participants in the study to support the choice of each theme.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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”.<br/>• The analysis will continue until saturation of the data.<br/>• 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.<br/>• 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.</p>\n<p>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 <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[0]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[0]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18M.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-how-researchers-use-inductive-content-analysis-(thematic-analysis)-on-interview-transcripts"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain how <strong>one</strong> principle that defines the biological level of analysis has been demonstrated in <strong>one</strong> example of research (theory or study).</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Acceptable principles may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>behaviour is, to some extent, genetically based</li>\n<li>animal research may inform our understanding of human behaviour</li>\n<li>there are biological correlates to human behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a relevant principle and research are described but the link is not explicitly explained, then apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, describe how <strong>one</strong> biological factor may affect <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>A specific biological factor must be clearly identified. Possible cognitive processes include, but are not limited to, memory, language acquisition, problem solving, and perception.</p>\n<p>Research studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>Broca’s (1861) or Wernicke’s (1874) studies on the role of damage to specific regions of the brain on language production and language understanding</li>\n<li>Martinez and Kesner’s (1991) investigation of neurotransmission and memory consolidation</li>\n<li>Milner <em>et al.</em>’s (1968) case study of HM or Blakemore’s (1988) case study of Clive Wearing, investigating the role of the hippocampus on memory consolidation and retrieval</li>\n<li>Newcomer (1998) or Meaney’s (1988) studies on the role of glucocorticoids (cortisol) on memory impairment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The focus of the response should be on how the biological factor affects the cognitive process, not solely on describing the study.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one biological factor, credit should be given only to the first biological factor.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, outline the role of situational <strong>and/or</strong> dispositional factors in explaining behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of how situational and/or dispositional factors may explain human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Answers 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.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate study, but does not refer to situational or dispositional factors, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "sociocultural-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> effects of the environment on <strong>one or more</strong> physiological processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more effects of the environment on one or more physiological processes.</p>\n<p>Examples of how the environment may affect physiological processes include, but are not limited to the effects of:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>daylight hours on levels of melatonin</li>\n<li>poverty on neuroplasticity</li>\n<li>environmental stressors on physiological stress response</li>\n<li>interaction with the environment and brain development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Maguire <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study on neuroplasticity in the hippocampus of taxi drivers</li>\n<li>Marmot <em>et a</em>l.’s (1997) Whitehall study on perceived control of workplace stress and cardiovascular health</li>\n<li>Meaney’s (1988) study on how environmental stressors lead to hippocampal cell loss in rats</li>\n<li>Rosenzweig and Bennett’s (1972) study on stimulating environments and dendritic branching</li>\n<li>Bremner <em>et al</em>.’s (2003) study on environmental stressors and the reduction of hippocampal volume.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the effects may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and/or ethical issues</li>\n<li>supporting and contrary findings</li>\n<li>application of the findings</li>\n<li>contributing factors other than the environment affecting physiological processes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-biological-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "physiology-and-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> ethical considerations related to <strong>one or more</strong> research studies at the cognitive level of analysis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may be positive (what guidelines were followed) or negative (what guidelines were not followed).</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>protection from physical or mental harm</li>\n<li>briefing and debriefing</li>\n<li>right to withdraw from a study</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>anonymity/confidentiality.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of ethical considerations may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why deception is used</li>\n<li>the need for debriefing</li>\n<li>a cost–benefit analysis approach with regard to ethical considerations</li>\n<li>the meaning of “informed” consent and who has the right to give it</li>\n<li>changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines</li>\n<li>the importance of minimizing physical and/or psychological pain</li>\n<li>why anonymity/confidentiality of data is important</li>\n<li>whether the study is justified or could it have been conducted in alternative ways.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-cognitive-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-learning-outcomes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine <strong>two or more</strong> factors influencing conformity.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Appropriate 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates may refer to a number of studies that may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Asch’s (1951, 1952, 1956) studies on the influence of group size, unanimity and the difficulty of the task</li>\n<li>Crutchfield’s (1955) study on intellectual competence, ego strength, leadership ability and authoritarian personality</li>\n<li>Perrin and Spencer’s (1988) study on confidence</li>\n<li>Moscovici <em>et al</em>.’s (1969, 1976, 1985) studies on the influence of a minority</li>\n<li>Berry’s (1967) study or Bond and Smith’s study (1996) on cultural differences</li>\n<li>Abrams (1990) study on the role of social identity. </li>\n</ul>\n<p>In order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>our inherent need to belong and the role this plays in normative social influence</li>\n<li>that we understand ourselves through social comparison</li>\n<li>our behaviour is influenced by others, even when we believe that we are acting independently</li>\n<li>gender and cultural considerations – such as the role of cultural dimensions on our behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate examines only one factor influencing conformity, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.1.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-core-the-sociocultural-level-of-analysis"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-norms"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do cognitive factors influence abnormal behaviour?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of cognitive factors that affect abnormal behaviour.</p>\n<p>Cognitive factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cognitive approaches to treatment</li>\n<li>cognitive etiologies for specific disorders</li>\n<li>negative cognitive schemas influencing depression</li>\n<li>distorted weight-related schema influencing bulimia</li>\n<li>intrusive memories influencing panic reactions in patients with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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”.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework-(applicable-to-all-topics-in-the-option)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) related to approaches to treatment.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>systematic desensitization</li>\n<li>the cognitive-behavioural model</li>\n<li>social learning theory (social cognitive theory)</li>\n<li>the serotonin hypothesis.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Neale <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) meta-analysis of published studies on the outcome of anti-depressants versus placebo</li>\n<li>Hay <em>et al</em>.’s (2004) study on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of bulimia</li>\n<li>Leuchter <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) study on the changes in brain function during treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus during treatment with placebo</li>\n<li>Elkin <em>et al</em>.’s (1989) controlled outcome study of treatment of depression</li>\n<li>Pampallona <em>et al</em>.’s (2004) meta-analysis of efficacy of drug treatment alone versus drug treatment and psychotherapy in depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the selected theory or study may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural or gender considerations</li>\n<li>empirical findings</li>\n<li>conditions under which the explanations/findings may be applied</li>\n<li>comparison to other explanations</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework-(applicable-to-all-topics-in-the-option)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Contrast the use of biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment of <strong>one</strong> disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Expect 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.</p>\n<p>Contrasting points addressed may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the two approaches to treatment</li>\n<li>the assumptions about etiology upon which they are based with regard to the disorder</li>\n<li>cultural, gender, ethical or practical issues related to the implementation of biomedical and individual approaches to the treatment of one disorder.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses should be focused on biomedical and individual approaches to treatment of one specific disorder to demonstrate detailed knowledge and understanding relevant to the question.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If the response contrasts group approaches to treatment to biomedical/individual approaches to treatment, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework-(applicable-to-all-topics-in-the-option)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do biological factors influence human development?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of biological factors that affect human development.</p>\n<p>Responses may refer to biological factors including but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development</li>\n<li>Waber’s (2007) MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) studies showing that as children mature, the speed of mental processing generally increases</li>\n<li>the role of neuroplasticity in brain development</li>\n<li>the role of stress hormones on faulty development</li>\n<li>the role of sex hormones</li>\n<li>Bowlby’s theory that the capacity for attachment is innate.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>In order to respond to the command term, it is appropriate and useful for candidates to discuss:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the issue of reductionism</li>\n<li>how human development is the result of complex interactions between biological, sociocultural and cognitive factors</li>\n<li>how biology and experience act together to produce the normal course of development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Animal research may be used as long as a clear link is made to human development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "general-framework"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> examples of psychological research (theories and/or studies) relevant to the formation and development of gender roles.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender schema theory that stresses the key role of cognitive processes in the development of gender roles</li>\n<li>social learning theory that highlights the importance of the social environment and emphasizes the potency of observational and modelling processes</li>\n<li>theory of psychosexual differentiation that is based on the assumption that gender roles are related to genetic sex determined by chromosomes</li>\n<li>evolutionary theory that attempts to locate gender role differences in a historical evolutionary context</li>\n<li>psychodynamic theory that is based on the assumption that gender roles appear when children identify with their same-sex parent.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Martin and Halvorson’s (1983) study showing the role of gender schemas on gender roles</li>\n<li>Fagot’s (1978) study showing the influence of parents on gender roles</li>\n<li>Mead’s (1935) study showing that gender roles depend upon the society</li>\n<li>Money and Ehrhardt’s (1972) study claiming that children are gender neutral at birth.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the relationship between physical change and development of identity during adolescence.</p>\n<p>Relevant 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Simmons and Blyth (1987) – the cultural ideal hypothesis</li>\n<li>Ferron (1997) – cultural differences in the way adolescents view bodily changes</li>\n<li>Mead’s cross-cultural theory</li>\n<li>studies on the timing of puberty and its impact on body image, self-esteem and behaviour: Brooks-Gunn and Paikoff (1993); Blyth, Bulcroft and Simmons (1981); Jones (1965).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the difficulty of generalizing the psychological effects of physical changes – theydepend on the timing of puberty and they differ in boys and girls</li>\n<li>biology is not the only factor influencing the development of identity</li>\n<li>culture is a strong determinant in self-perception and body shape perception</li>\n<li>puberty’s effects on development of identity may not be as strong as once believed.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only addresses development of identity or only addresses physical change in adolescence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "identity-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine <strong>one or more</strong> prevention strategies for substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Substance abuse and/or addictive behaviour may refer to addictions to tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, sex, gambling, or food, among others.</p>\n<p>Relevant prevention strategies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>targeting risk groups with health education</li>\n<li>use of social learning in media campaigns</li>\n<li>fear arousal through advertising</li>\n<li>government interventions, banning advertising, increasing the cost of the substance, or banning smoking and alcohol.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant campaigns/studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>smoking prevention campaigns such as the TRUTH anti-tobacco campaign in Florida in the 1990s</li>\n<li>the Australia North Coast study of the “Quit For Life” campaign, which resulted in a 15 percent reduction in smoking over three years</li>\n<li>Carr’s (1994) field study on the use of peer education in the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome in Canada.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>In order to respond to the command term “examine”, candidates may refer to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>health beliefs within cultures</li>\n<li>lifestyle and sociocultural context</li>\n<li>availability of health institutions</li>\n<li>socio-economic status.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> strategies for coping with stress.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more strategies used to cope with stress.</p>\n<p>Relevant strategies (including models and techniques) may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies (Lazarus and Folkman, 1988; 1975)</li>\n<li>forms of cognitive behavioural therapy such as stress inoculation training (Meichenbaum, 1985)</li>\n<li>social support groups/networks (Brown and Harris, 1978)</li>\n<li>mindfulness-based stress reduction strategies (Kabat-Zinn, 1979).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may also address ineffective or unhealthy coping strategies, such as drug taking, alcohol abuse, smoking, overeating, or the use of defense mechanisms.</p>\n<p>Discussion of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>research supporting or refuting the effectiveness of the strategy/strategies</li>\n<li>presenting possible methodological, ethical or cultural considerations</li>\n<li>a comparison and/or contrast of strategies</li>\n<li>strengths and limitations of the strategy/strategies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "stress"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two or more</strong> factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of two or more factors related to overeating and the development of obesity.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between overeating and obesity.</p>\n<p>Factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>physiological factors – for example, genetic predisposition, the role of dopamine, neurobiological explanation of food addiction</li>\n<li>psychological/cognitive factors – for example, low self-esteem, distorted body image, pessimistic thinking patterns, cognitive restraint</li>\n<li>sociocultural factors – for example, sedentary lifestyle, high-fat diet, coping with poverty.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Garn <em>et al</em>.’s (1981) study of correlation rates between body size in parents and their children</li>\n<li>Stunkard <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) study of identical twins reared apart in terms of body size</li>\n<li>Jeffery (2001): an increasingly sedentary way of life leads to more people suffering from the results of obesity</li>\n<li>Prentice and Jebb’s (1995) study of correlation rates between obesity and physical activity</li>\n<li>Blundel <em>et al</em>.’s (1997) study of obesity and percentage of fat in one’s diet</li>\n<li>Volkow <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) study indicating that obese participants had the same deficiency in dopamine receptors as drug addicts</li>\n<li>Nylander and Soerensen’s (2004) study of body shape attitudes and cultural norms.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural, gender and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>empirical evidence and related methodological factors</li>\n<li>the interaction between biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one factor, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "substance-abuse-addictive-behaviour-and-obesity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the effectiveness of <strong>two</strong> strategies for reducing violence.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of strategies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>a community based strategy, for example, Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS), 2002; Olweus, 1993</li>\n<li>group treatment programmes, such as the Duluth model (for example, Robertson, 1999)</li>\n<li>zero tolerance anti-bullying programmes (for example, Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld, 2011)</li>\n<li>jigsaw classrooms against bullying (for example, Aronson, 1979)</li>\n<li>empathy training (for example, Feshbach and Feshbach, 1982)</li>\n<li>computer-based strategies to improve empathy (for example, Figueiredo <em>et al</em>., 2007).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategies may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural, gender and ethical issues</li>\n<li>methodological issues</li>\n<li>long-term versus short-term effectiveness</li>\n<li>the difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of a strategy</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory findings or explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate evaluates only one strategy for reducing violence, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "violence"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Analyse the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “analyse” requires candidates to bring out (emphasize) essential aspects of the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.</p>\n<p>Candidates do not need to distinguish between the formation and maintenance of relationships, as the two are so closely linked.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address different types of relationships, for example, romantic relationships, marriages, friendship, family relationships, workplace relationships.</p>\n<p>Studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yelsma and Athappilly’s (1988) comparative study of arranged marriages and love marriages</li>\n<li>Buss <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) study of international preferences in selecting mates (a study of 37 cultures)</li>\n<li>Levine <em>et al</em>.’s (1995) study on the role of love in the establishment of marriage</li>\n<li>Buss’s (1994) cross-cultural study of relationships</li>\n<li>Canary and Dainton’s (2003) study of Korean relationships</li>\n<li>Ahmad and Reid’s (2008) study of communication styles in arranged marriages</li>\n<li>Moghaddam <em>et al</em>.’s (1993) study on the influence of cultural dimensions, for example of individualism versus collectivism and the Western bias in research on relationships.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>addressing the issue of universality (for example, equity is not a universal value in relationships)</li>\n<li>comparing and contrasting cultural similarities and differences in relationships (for example, do social norms affect how appropriate it is to express dissatisfaction with a marriage?)</li>\n<li>discussing the influence of biological factors</li>\n<li>evaluation of relevant research including analysis of the methodology and/or ethical considerations</li>\n<li>discussing evolutionary theory which suggests there are universal patterns in the formation and maintenance of relationships.</li>\n</ul>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "interpersonal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> theories explaining altruism in humans.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Animal research may be used as long as a clear link is made to human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>kin selection theory</li>\n<li>reciprocal altruism theory</li>\n<li>the negative-state relief model</li>\n<li>empathy-altruism theory</li>\n<li>social exchange theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>strengths and limitations of the theories</li>\n<li>methodological considerations of studies</li>\n<li>cultural/gender considerations</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory empirical evidence</li>\n<li>alternative explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Explanations of bystanderism, diffusion of responsibility and/or cost–benefit analysis should not be awarded marks.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one theory, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> theories relating arousal and/or anxiety to performance in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories relating arousal and/or anxiety to performance in sport.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary for candidates to distinguish between arousal and anxiety.</p>\n<p>Theories include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yerkes and Dodson’s (1908) inverted-U hypothesis</li>\n<li>Zajonc’s (1965) drive theory</li>\n<li>Apter’s (1982) reversal theory</li>\n<li>Baumeister’s (1984) explicit monitoring theory</li>\n<li>Frazey and Hardy’s (1988) catastrophe model</li>\n<li>Hardy’s (1996) multidimensional anxiety theory</li>\n<li>Hanin’s (1997) individual zones of optimal functioning theory</li>\n<li>Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion of the selected research may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.13",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-motivation"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain relationships between team cohesion and performance in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, for relationships between team cohesion and performance.</p>\n<p>The 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).</p>\n<p>Studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Ingram <em>et al</em>.’s (1974) study on “social loafing” as a result of team cohesion</li>\n<li>Locke and Latham (1985) on the value of process goals and their potential to enhance team performance</li>\n<li>Slater and Sewall (1994) on the bidirectional relationship between team cohesion and performance</li>\n<li>Boone <em>et al</em>.’s (1997) study on individual’s perceptions of a team</li>\n<li>Kenow and Williams (1999) on comparison of cohesion strategies in coaches from Australia and the US</li>\n<li>Gould <em>et al</em>. (1999) on US Olympic teams’ cohesiveness and performance</li>\n<li>Grieve <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study on the unidirectional relationship of team cohesion and performance</li>\n<li>Carron <em>et al.</em>’s (2002) study on the positive effect of team cohesion on performance.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender and/or cultural factors</li>\n<li>analysis of negative and/or positive effects</li>\n<li>bidirectionality</li>\n<li>factors other than team cohesion that influence performance</li>\n<li>evaluation of relevant research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3] </strong>for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.14",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "skill-development-and-performance"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Examine <strong>two or more</strong> reasons for using drugs in sport.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Reasons for using drugs in sport include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>improvement of performance</li>\n<li>prolong a career in sport</li>\n<li>more rapid recovery from injury</li>\n<li>stress reduction</li>\n<li>pain reduction</li>\n<li>increase attractiveness</li>\n<li>peer pressure.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Newman and Newman (1991) on the role of conformity in steroid use by Canadian athletes</li>\n<li>Whitehead <em>et al</em>.’s (1992) study of steroid use in US male high school students</li>\n<li>Anshel’s (1998) study on the role of social learning theory in drug use in young athletes</li>\n<li>Shermer’s (2008) application of game theory (for example, prisoner’s dilemma) to drug usage in sport.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender differences</li>\n<li>bidirectionality</li>\n<li>cultural variations</li>\n<li>empirical findings that support or refute the reasons for using drugs in sport.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one reason, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion C, organization.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.2.BP.TZ0.15",
    "topics": [
      "2018-options-sport-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "problems-in-sports"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">As 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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).</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Physical benefits: participants saw walking the dog as good for their health. They were motivated to walk, even when in ill health, or when the weather was bad and they did not really feel like it.</li>\n<li>Psychological benefits: participants found that the dog gave them comfort and companionship. Some said the dog helped them when they felt depressed or lonely – especially after the death of a partner.</li>\n<li>Social benefits: participants found that socializing with other dog walkers helped participants feel that they were part of a group.</li>\n</ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,<br/>and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the purposive sampling technique used in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Purposive 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”.</p>\n<p>Strengths of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The participants accurately represent the topic under investigation because they are selected based on specific characteristics relevant to the research in order to provide rich data. For example, the participants were chosen because they owned a dog and were elderly, which fitted perfectly with the aim of this study, which opened up a new research area.</li>\n<li>It is relatively easy to select a sample once the selection criteria are clear. The sample can be supplemented with more participants during the research if necessary, e.g. using snowball sampling. In this study, the 24 participants were found in places where you would expect to meet dog owners.</li>\n<li>With purposive sampling you can gain insight into people's subjective beliefs about dog ownership and how that relates to their behaviour and wellbeing. For example, some participants referred to how they were “motivated to walk the dog even when they were in ill health” or that “the dog helped them when they felt depressed or lonely”.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Limitations of the purposive sampling method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The selection criteria used by the researcher are related to the overall topic of the study and could be subjective and biased. However, if the sampling process is based on objective criteria, documented and explained, bias can be reduced. In this explorative study, the researchers had chosen “elderly dog owners” as a target population in order to investigate potential benefits of dog ownership for the elderly. There may be potential biases in the selection process; for example, it could be assumed that dog owners were generally healthier and fitter than other people of the same age so the researchers must be attentive to whether or not they could apply the findings outside the actual sample.</li>\n<li>The sample may not be representative outside the target population because it is based on specific criteria, so it is difficult to generalize. However, this is less important in a qualitative study such as this explorative study because the focus is on how these particular participants experience potential health benefits of owning a dog and the data gathered could be used to make further research in the area under investigation.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Responses that evaluate only a sampling method other than the purposive sampling method used in the study should be awarded <strong>[0]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-theory-and-practice-in-qualitative-research"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "discuss-sampling-techniques-appropriate-to-qualitative-research"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">As 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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).</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Physical benefits: participants saw walking the dog as good for their health. They were motivated to walk, even when in ill health, or when the weather was bad and they did not really feel like it.</li>\n<li>Psychological benefits: participants found that the dog gave them comfort and companionship. Some said the dog helped them when they felt depressed or lonely – especially after the death of a partner.</li>\n<li>Social benefits: participants found that socializing with other dog walkers helped participants feel that they were part of a group.</li>\n</ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,<br/>and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe how researchers in this study used inductive content analysis (thematic analysis) on the interview transcripts.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of how inductive content analysis was applied to the interview transcripts in the study.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Reading and rereading the transcripts of the focus group interviews to identify possible categories or themes (coding the raw data) that relate to how participants believe they benefit from having a dog.</li>\n<li>After a systematic analysis of the transcript and coding of data in terms of emerging themes (for example, \"walking the dog is good for my health\" or \"socializing with other dog walkers helps me feel part of a group\", the researcher could try to connect emerging themes in meaningful ways to establish low-level and higher-level themes and connect them in meaningful ways to establish possible hierarchies of themes.</li>\n<li>Constructing a summary table of the three higher-order themes mentioned in the stimulus material (physical benefits, psychological benefits, and social benefits) and connecting them to lower-level themes.</li>\n<li>Adding relevant quotations from participants in the study to support the choice of each theme. For example, for physical benefits some participants said “they were motivated to walk, even when in ill health”. When discussing psychological benefits some participants said “the dog gave them comfort and companionship.”</li>\n<li>Analysis of the transcripts will continue until saturation of the data.</li>\n<li>The final task is to make interpretations based on the summary table in order to find a relationship between the different themes and support this with relevant quotations from the participants.</li>\n<li>Finally, the researcher could attempt formulation of theory based on the analysis.</li>\n<li>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.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses that merely identify themes but do not describe the process of inductive content analysis should be awarded up to a maximum of up to <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[0]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Responses 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 <strong>[0]</strong>.</p>\n<p> </p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "explain-how-researchers-use-inductive-content-analysis-(thematic-analysis)-on-interview-transcripts"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">As 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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).</p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The analysis of the transcripts revealed three higher-order themes related to participants’ beliefs of dog ownership:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Physical benefits: participants saw walking the dog as good for their health. They were motivated to walk, even when in ill health, or when the weather was bad and they did not really feel like it.</li>\n<li>Psychological benefits: participants found that the dog gave them comfort and companionship. Some said the dog helped them when they felt depressed or lonely – especially after the death of a partner.</li>\n<li>Social benefits: participants found that socializing with other dog walkers helped participants feel that they were part of a group.</li>\n</ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The 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.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source: Based on Knight, S. and Edwards, V. (2008) In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social,<br/>and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 437–455]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of focus group interviews in this study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of factors relevant for the use of focus group interviews in this study.</p>\n<p>Responses that use the term “experiment” as a generic term for “study” should not be penalized.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion points could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The focus group allows for a flexible approach to the topic under investigation. The researcher can prepare a list of topics and questions to ask in advance and use them as a guide but they can be adjusted if necessary. In this study, some participants revealed that their dog was a source of comfort when they lost their partner. This topic was probably not planned by the researcher but could be further explored now that it was mentioned during the group discussion.</li>\n<li>In focus groups, participants can use their own language and they can discuss and respond to each other's statements. This gives a special dynamic to the interview and generates rich data. Normally, a focus group interview is considered to be higher in ecological validity because of its conversational nature. In the context of this study, members of the focus group could perhaps stimulate new thoughts on potential benefits of dog ownership that would not have occurred otherwise.</li>\n<li>Candidates may compare the focus group interview to alternative interview methods. For example, the focus group interview gave the researchers an opportunity to explore a number of opinions at the same time. This could save time compared to conducting individual interviews.</li>\n<li>Conformity might occur in a focus group interview as well as social desirability effects but a skilled facilitator will be attentive to this.</li>\n<li>Confidentiality/anonymity is very difficult if not impossible to obtain when a focus group interview is chosen but it can be justified if the topic under investigation is not particularly sensitive as in this study.</li>\n</ul>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "18N.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2018-qualitative-research-methodology-interviews"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluate-semi‑structured-focus-group-and-narrative-interviews"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe the effect of <strong>one</strong> neurotransmitter on human behaviour with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of appropriate studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effect of serotonin in depression (Coppen, 1967) or prosocial behaviour (Crockett <em>et al</em>., 2010)</li>\n<li>the effect of acetylcholine in memory (Antonova, 2011, Rogers and Kesner, 2003)</li>\n<li>the effect of dopamine in addiction (Volkow <em>et al</em>., 2004; Berridge and Kringelbach, 2009) or attraction (Fisher, Aron and Brown, 2005)</li>\n<li>the effect of noradrenaline (norepinephrine) in attention (Bunsey and Strupp, 1995; Bymaster <em>et al</em>., 2002).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Animal 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 <strong>[6]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes the effect of more than one neurotransmitter, credit should be given only to the first effect described.</p>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study described.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes the effect of one neurotransmitter without making reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing the effect of the neurotransmitter, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>References 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ1.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating reconstructive memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating reconstructive memory.</p>\n<p>The description of the study should include the aim, procedure and results of the study. The description should explicitly demonstrate conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory.</p>\n<p>Examples of appropriate studies could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bartlett (1932), Brewer and Treyens (1981) on the role of schema</li>\n<li>Neisser and Harsch (1992); Loftus and Pickerell (1995); Shaw and Porter (2015) on reconstruction of autobiographical memory</li>\n<li>Loftus (1993) and Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) studies on eyewitness memories</li>\n<li>Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study that argued that in highly emotional situations, memories may not be reconstructed or open to distortion.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong>. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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 – <em>e.g.</em> the design, independent/dependent variables or controls.</p>\n<p>Bartlett (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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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, <em>eg</em> 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.</p>\n<p>Some candidates failed to be credited because they presented studies on flashbulb memory which did not relate to reconstructive memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ1.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "reliability-of-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Outline social identity theory with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Responses should identify the key concepts of social identity theory which include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>social categorization (in-group/out-group)</li>\n<li>social comparison</li>\n<li>positive in-group distinctiveness.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities</li>\n<li>Sherif <em>et al</em>.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)</li>\n<li>Cialdini <em>et al</em>.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)</li>\n<li>Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)</li>\n<li>Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study described.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines social identity theory without reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only describes a study related to social identity theory but does not outline the theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>However, 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.</p>\n<p>Studies 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ1.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> techniques used to study the brain in relation to behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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</p>\n<p>Brain imaging techniques include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>fMRI</li>\n<li>MRI</li>\n<li>EEG</li>\n<li>ERP</li>\n<li>CAT/CT</li>\n<li>PET</li>\n<li>Post mortem</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Corkin (1997) using MRI to investigate the effect of damage to HM’s medial temporal lobes and the effect on memory formation</li>\n<li>Brefczynski-Lewis <em>et al</em>. (2007) using fMRI to investigate the effect of meditation on the brain</li>\n<li>Maguire <em>et al</em>. (2000) using MRI scans to investigate neuroplasticity in taxi drivers</li>\n<li>Ogden (2005) using CT scans to investigate the effect of brain damage on hemineglect</li>\n<li>Bert <em>et al</em>. (2011) using PET/CT in diagnosis of dementia</li>\n<li>Fisher, Aron and Brown (2005) using fMRI to investigate dopamine and love</li>\n<li>Draganski <em>et al</em>. (2004) using MRI to investigate the effects of learning juggling on the brain.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>how brain imaging techniques have improved our understanding of the relationship between physiological factors and behaviour</li>\n<li>the reasons why different technologies are used</li>\n<li>evaluation of the techniques</li>\n<li>ethical and methodological considerations in the use of the techniques.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Those occurring most frequently were Maguire <em>et al</em> (2000), Corkin (1997) with HM, Fisher <em>et al</em>. (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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.SL.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-role-of-animal-research-in-understanding-human-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the influence of emotion on <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Responses may focus on any cognitive process that is affected by emotion such as intelligence, perception, memory or decision making.</p>\n<p>Appropriate research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Kulik (1977) study of flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>LeDoux (1996) theory of the emotional brain</li>\n<li>Nutt and Lam (2011), Fisher and Craik (1977), Overton (1964) studies of state-dependent memory</li>\n<li>Scherer (2001) study of appraisal theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>degree of empirical support</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n<li>application of findings</li>\n<li>contrary explanations or findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given only to the first one.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ1.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of culture on behaviour and/or cognition.</p>\n<p>It is not necessary for candidates to make a distinction between behaviour and cognition.</p>\n<p>Appropriate research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>conformity (Bond and Smith, 1996; Kagitcibasi, 1984; Berry, 1967)</li>\n<li>attachment (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg, 1988; Sagi <em>et al</em>., 1985)</li>\n<li>abnormal behaviour (Lin and Kleinman, 1988; Murphy, 1976)</li>\n<li>addictive behaviour (Raylu and Oei, 2004; Brady, 1995)</li>\n<li>memory strategies and sociocultural context (Rogoff and Waddel, 1982)</li>\n<li>stereotypes and memory (Allport and Postman, 1947)</li>\n<li>social identity's effect on formation of flashbulb memories (Luminet and Curci, 2009)</li>\n<li>the effects of education on encoding strategies (Cole and Scribner, 1974).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the explanations of how culture influences behaviour/cognition</li>\n<li>methodological and gender considerations of relevant research</li>\n<li>empirical support</li>\n<li>contrary explanations or findings</li>\n<li>application of empirical findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>The weaker responses were often anecdotal, with no reference to psychological terminology or studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ1.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-origins-of-behaviour-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how animal research may provide insight into human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the contribution of animal research in the understanding of human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Responses may highlight that animal research has been a major contributor to our understanding of many aspects of human behaviour such as:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>basic learning processes, intelligence and memory</li>\n<li>motivational systems such as hunger, thirst and reproduction</li>\n<li>sensory processes of vision, taste, hearing, and pain perception</li>\n<li>fear, anxiety and stress</li>\n<li>strategies for prevention and treatment of mental health disorders</li>\n<li>drug abuse and dependence</li>\n<li>process of recovery after neural damage.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Research relevant to answering this question may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Harlow's studies (1958, 1971, 1975) on attachment</li>\n<li>Selye (1956, 1976), Brady's \"Executive Monkey\" (1959), Weiss's (1972) studies on stress</li>\n<li>Gardner and Gardner (1969), Patterson (1978), Savage-Rumbaugh's (1988) studies on language</li>\n<li>Held and Hein's \"Kitten Carousel\" (1963), Blakemore and Cooper's (1970) studies on perception</li>\n<li>Seligman's work (1970) on preparedness of phobias and his work (1973) on helplessness in depression</li>\n<li>Russon and Galdikas (1979), Gallup (1970), Savage-Rumbaugh and Lewin (1994), Foote and Crystal's (2007) studies on intelligence</li>\n<li>Rosenzweig, Bennet and Diamond's (1972) study on the effect of environmental stimulation on brain plasticity</li>\n<li>Meany's (1988) study on the role of glucocorticoids (stress hormones) in memory.</li>\n<li>Rogers and Kesner's (2003) study on the role of acetylcholine in the formation of spatial memory</li>\n<li>Sapoloky's case study on the role of cortisol on cardiovascular health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>factors that make animal research essential for the study of human behaviour</li>\n<li>conditions under which extrapolations may be warranted</li>\n<li>ethical considerations in animal research</li>\n<li>limits to the adequacy of animal models for social and cultural phenomena</li>\n<li>practical applications of animal findings. </li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.HL.TZ1.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-role-of-animal-research-in-understanding-human-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe localization with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of localization of function related to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>Responses should describe localization of function, clearly indicating how a specific area of the brain is, or specific areas are, involved in behaviour or cognition.</p>\n<p>Candidates should refer to an appropriate study that is relevant to the biological approach.</p>\n<p>Examples of studies could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>localization of speech production/understanding (Wernicke, 1900; Broca, 1861)</li>\n<li>the role of the hippocampus in episodic, semantic memory or spatial memory (Corkin, 1997; Maguire, 2000)</li>\n<li>the role of the amygdala in aggression (Matthies <em>et al</em>., 2012) or memory (McGaugh and Cahill, 1995; Sharot <em>et al</em>., 2007)</li>\n<li>role of the prefrontal lobe in decision making (Bechara, 1999).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes localization of function with reference to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If 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 <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses localization of function but does not refer to an appropriate study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - Many candidates had a very limited description of localization.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<p>Some candidates are still using research from the 19<span style=\"font-size: 11.6667px;\">th</span> 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Finally, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ2.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Explain <strong>one</strong> cultural dimension with brief reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, of one cultural dimension.</p>\n<p>Cultural dimensions may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>individualism versus collectivism (Berry, 1967; Chen <em>et al</em>., 2005)</li>\n<li>power/distance (Zhang <em>et al</em>., 2010; Lynn <em>et al</em>., 1993; Eylon and Au, 1999)</li>\n<li>long-term versus short-term orientation (Confucian dynamism) (Hofstede and Bond, 1988)</li>\n<li>masculinity versus femininity (Vunderick and Hofstede, 1998)</li>\n<li>uncertainty avoidance (Shane, 1995).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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, <em>etc</em>. Both explanations are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first explanation.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes a relevant study, but a cultural dimension is not explained, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate explains one cultural dimension without reference to a study, up to a maximum of <strong>[6]</strong> should be awarded. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>Some candidates defined all of the dimensions and gave brief examples for each. In this case, only the first example was assessed.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ2.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cultural-origins-of-behaviour-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effect of pheromones on human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of pheromones on human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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, <em>etc</em>.)</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>McClintock's (1971) study on menstrual periods of women who lived together</li>\n<li>Black and Biron's (1982) study on judgments of attractiveness</li>\n<li>Lundstrom and Olsson’s (2005) study on effects of androstadienone on women's attraction to men</li>\n<li>Hare <em>et al</em>.’s (2017) study on the ability of androstadienone and estratetraenol to signal gender and attractiveness</li>\n<li>Cutler's (1998) study on sexual behaviour in men</li>\n<li>Zhou <em>et al</em>.’s (2014) study on the effects of androstadienone and estratetraenol on the assignment of gender to animated figures.</li>\n<li>Wedekind <em>et al</em>. (1995) investigating mate preference based on genetic makeup in relation to immune system functioning</li>\n<li>Doucet's <em>et al</em>.’s (2009) study on maternal behaviour.</li>\n<li>Saxton <em>et al</em>.’s (2008) study on how androstadienone modulates women's attributions of men's attractiveness.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>pheromone effects are dependent on social and psychological context</li>\n<li>pheromones appear to affect behaviour by altering psychological state, not by triggering fixed responses</li>\n<li>pheromones affect men and women differently</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations, including the ambiguity of research evidence</li>\n<li>application of empirical findings including evidence for/against the role of vomeronasal and olfactory sense.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Animal research (<em>eg</em> Bind <em>et al</em>., 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 <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant 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.</p>\n<p>Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.SL.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "hormones-and-pheromones-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> <strong>or more</strong> biases in thinking and/or decision-making.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of biases in thinking and/or decision-making.</p>\n<p>Thinking and decision-making are closely related cognitive processes and candidates do not need to make a distinction between the two.</p>\n<p>Candidates may address examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making in relation to specific aspects of human behaviour or address behaviour in general. Both approaches are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>Examples of biased thinking and/or decision-making may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>specific biases (<em>eg</em> confirmation, optimism, selective attention)</li>\n<li>illusory correlation</li>\n<li>effects of framing</li>\n<li>heuristics (<em>eg</em> anchoring, availability, representativeness)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Chapman and Chapman (1969); Stone <em>et al</em>. (1997) on confirmation bias</li>\n<li>Englisch and Mussweiler (2001); Strack and Mussweiler (1997) on anchoring bias</li>\n<li>Hamilton and Gifford (1976); Snyder and Swann (1978); Song and Schwarz (2007) on illusory correlation</li>\n<li>Tversky and Kahneman (1981) on framing effects</li>\n<li>Zebrowitz and McDonald (1991); Verhulst <em>et al</em> (2010); Palmer and Peterson (2012) on halo effect</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Applications of findings – for example, in marketing or in understanding health-related behaviour</li>\n<li>Cultural and gender differences in cognitive biases</li>\n<li>Difficulties in studying cognitive processes – <em>eg</em> isolation of variables and measuring cognition; artificial nature of experimental research</li>\n<li>Explanations of why cognitive biases occur – <em>eg</em> linking to Dual Process Theory</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - 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.</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Finally, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ2.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "reliability-of-cognitive-processes"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate social identity theory, with reference to <strong>one or more</strong> studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities</li>\n<li>Sherif <em>et al</em>.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)</li>\n<li>Cialdini <em>et al</em>.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)</li>\n<li>Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)</li>\n<li>Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effectiveness of the theory in explaining behaviour</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>applications of the theory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>HL - There were some strong responses to this question; however, many candidates evaluated relevant research, rather than actually evaluating Social Identity Theory (SIT).</p>\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Critical 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.</p>\n<p>SL - 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.BP.TZ2.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two or more</strong> ethical considerations in animal research when investigating the brain and behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the ethical considerations related to non-human animals and psychological research.</p>\n<p>Candidates will likely describe the current guidelines (<em>eg</em> British Psychological Society, American Psychological Association) that regulate using animals for the purposes of research.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>animal welfare (the care of animals in captivity)</li>\n<li>reduction of the number of animals used</li>\n<li>refinement: using less invasive techniques</li>\n<li>replacement: searching for alternatives to animal research</li>\n<li>undue stress and harm</li>\n<li>use of a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the research has value.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>advancements made as a result of animal research/the effectiveness of animal research</li>\n<li>attempts made over the years to improve the conditions for animals used in research</li>\n<li>change over time in ethical approaches to animal research</li>\n<li>how the use of animals can or cannot be justified</li>\n<li>the rationale for the use of animals.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate only discusses one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Few candidates applied the command term. Critical thinking with regard to the implications of ethical considerations – <em>e.g.</em> 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.</p>\n<p>Finally, 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.1.HL.TZ2.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-role-of-animal-research-in-understanding-human-behavior"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss validity and reliability of diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant classification systems in the discussion of validity and reliability of diagnosis include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)</li>\n<li>Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD)</li>\n<li>International Classification of Diseases (ICD).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of research that could be used include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Nicholls <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) studies of inter-rater reliability</li>\n<li>Seeman’s (2007) literature review on the reliability of diagnosis</li>\n<li>Wakefield <em>et al</em>.’s (2007) study on the validity of diagnosis</li>\n<li>Silverman <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) study on test-retest of anxiety symptoms and diagnosis</li>\n<li>Rosenhan’s studies of diagnostic validity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only validity or only reliability, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss prevalence rates of <strong>one or more</strong> disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of prevalence rates of one or more disorders.</p>\n<p>The disorder(s) chosen are likely to come from those presented in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress-related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of studies investigating prevalence of specific disorders could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Makino <em>et al</em>.’s (2004) study regarding prevalence of eating disorders in western and non-western countries</li>\n<li>Weisman <em>et al</em>.’s (1995) study regarding cross-cultural variation in data on depression rates</li>\n<li>Marsella <em>et al</em>.‘s (2002) study of depression rates</li>\n<li>Dutton’s (2009) study of cultural variation in prevalence of major depression</li>\n<li>Sartorius <em>et al</em>.’s (1983) study regarding cultural differences in the stigma associated with mental health problems</li>\n<li>Nolen-Hoeksema’s (2001) study of gender rates in depression</li>\n<li>Kessler <em>et al</em>.‘s (1993) study of gender and likelihood of seeking medical help</li>\n<li>Piccinelli and Wilkinson’s (2000) study of gender differences in depression</li>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1977) study of factors affecting vulnerability to depression.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>age and gender differences</li>\n<li>lifestyle (diet, exercise, presence of physical or psychological abuse, relationships,sleep, practising meditation)</li>\n<li>sociocultural context</li>\n<li>social and cultural norms</li>\n<li>availability of mental health treatment</li>\n<li>socioeconomic status.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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).</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of culture in the treatment of <strong>one or more</strong> disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of culture in the treatment of one or more disorders.</p>\n<p>The disorder(s) chosen are likely to be from those presented in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress-related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Castillo’s (1997) study on a client centred approach in treatment</li>\n<li>Sue and Zane’s (2009) study on the role of culture and cultural techniques in psychotherapy</li>\n<li>Marsala’s (2012) study on cultural conceptions of mental health and therapy</li>\n<li>Nicholl and Thompson’s (2004) study on psychological treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adult refugees</li>\n<li>Sharen and Sundar’s (2015) study on eating disorders in women.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points related to culture and treatment may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>culture-bound disorders</li>\n<li>accessibility of treatment</li>\n<li>interpretation of the symptoms</li>\n<li>cultural norms</li>\n<li>different approaches to treatment</li>\n<li>cultural acceptance of treatment.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses disorders in general, rather than specific disorder(s), award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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 <strong>in treatment</strong> 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Contrast <strong>two</strong> theories of cognitive development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between two theories of cognitive development.</p>\n<p>Theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Piaget’s (1936) theory of cognitive development</li>\n<li>Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of sociocultural cognition</li>\n<li>Bruner’s (1956) theory suggesting that thinking is the result of cognitive development</li>\n<li>the information-processing approach to cognitive development</li>\n<li>neurobiological explanations</li>\n<li>Kohlberg’s (1958) theory of levels of moral development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Contrasting points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural contexts</li>\n<li>gender differences and considerations</li>\n<li>strengths and limits of the theories</li>\n<li>empirical support and criticism of the theories</li>\n<li>application of the theories.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate provides only an implicit contrast, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.</p>\n<p>If the candidate chooses a theory that is not specific to cognitive development (<em>eg</em> Bowlby, Erikson), award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>In some cases, candidates provided only a brief contrast at the very end or more often candidates evaluated each theory separately.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of peers and/or play in development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of the role of peers and/or play in development.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fagot’s (1985) study on gender-specific toys and play</li>\n<li>Hughes’s (1999) study on learning social skills through role play</li>\n<li>Todd <em>et al</em>.’s (2016) study on preferences for gender-type toys</li>\n<li>Russ’s (2004) study of a child’s capacity for cognitive flexibility and creativity developed by role play</li>\n<li>Bradley’s (1985) study on social cognitive development and toys</li>\n<li>Bradbard <em>et al</em>.’s (1986) study of the influence of sex stereotypes on children’s exploration and memory</li>\n<li>Albert <em>et al</em>.’s (2013) study on peer influences in adolescent decision-making.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Topics for discussion may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender specific toys and clothing in gender identity development</li>\n<li>the role of toys in cognitive development</li>\n<li>the role of peers in modelling behaviours</li>\n<li>the role of peers and play in gender role development</li>\n<li>the role of peers and play in cognitive development</li>\n<li>research into types of play and the effect on social development</li>\n<li>the role of play in learning about co-operation and competition.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Top quality responses tended to address a number of different aspects of the role of peers and/or play in development:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The role of toys in cognitive development</li>\n<li>The role of peers and play in gender role development</li>\n<li>The role of peers in modelling behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Unfortunately, some responses were anecdotal or contained research irrelevant to the question (<em>e.g.</em>, Bobo doll experiment, Harlow’s monkey study)</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of attachment in development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bowlby’s research (various dates) on how maternal deprivation can affect an individual</li>\n<li>Ainsworth <em>et al</em>.’s (1978) studies showing how different types of attachment influence a child’s attachment pattern</li>\n<li>Van Ijzendorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) study on how cross-cultural patterns of attachment influence development</li>\n<li>Pratt and Norris (1994) – positive attachment in early relationships leads to positive reports on current social relationships</li>\n<li>Hazan and Shaver (1987) – similarities between romantic love as experienced by adults and the characteristics of attachment</li>\n<li>Rossi and Rossi (1990) – people who grew up in cohesive families tended to establish positive relationships with their own partners</li>\n<li>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.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>the role of deprivation in attachment</li>\n<li>short-term versus long-term effects in attachment</li>\n<li>the type of bond can vary with different partners</li>\n<li>methodological considerations of the supporting studies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>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 <strong>[2] </strong>for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This was a rather popular question and usually well addressed. Candidates often referred to Bowlby’s research, Ainsworth <em>et al.’</em>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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-an-identity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do dispositional factors and/or health beliefs affect health?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the influence that dispositional factors and/or health beliefs have on health.</p>\n<p>The topics related to health are likely to come from one of the following (from the psychology guide):</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Reed’s (1999) study relating to pessimism and HIV-related symptoms</li>\n<li>Kearney <em>et al</em>.’s (2006) study of stress and the immune system</li>\n<li>Weinberger <em>et al</em>.’s (1981) study on health beliefs and smoking behaviour</li>\n<li>Polivy’s (2001) false hope theory regarding dietary goals and optimism</li>\n<li>Gatchel’s (2017) study on fear avoidance belief and chronic pain</li>\n<li>Chapin’s (2010) study on the role of optimistic bias in adolescent risky sexual practices</li>\n<li>Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance in relation to health-related behaviour</li>\n<li>optimism bias in relation to health behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address other relevant factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "determinants-of-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies related to explanations of <strong>one or more</strong> health problems.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The health problems are likely to come from the list in the psychology guide, namely:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sohl and Moyer’s (2007) study on the effectiveness of the Health Belief Model</li>\n<li>Dunn <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) study on the effectiveness of the theory of planned behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological, cultural, and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary and supporting findings</li>\n<li>applications of the research study</li>\n<li>ethical concerns regarding the study</li>\n<li>validity and reliability of the study.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.</p>\n<p>In 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).</p>\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> ethical considerations related to promoting health.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires the candidate to offer a considered review of ethical considerations related to promoting health.</p>\n<p>Relevant ethical considerations discussed may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural factors affecting health promotion</li>\n<li>the accuracy and validity of the research used to develop health promotion such as “Fear-arousal factors” that are designed to scare people into healthy behaviours</li>\n<li>deception.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>McNeely <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) study on promoting school connectedness and adolescent health</li>\n<li>Job’s (1988) study on effective and ineffective use of fear in health promotion programmes</li>\n<li>Ruiter <em>et al</em>.’s (2014) review of research on fear appeal in promoting health</li>\n<li>Carter <em>et al.</em>’s (2011) study on evidence, ethics and values in promoting health</li>\n<li>Wallace and Forman’s (1998) study on religion’s role in promoting health among American youths.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does the sociocultural approach contribute to the understanding of personal relationships?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors to the understanding of personal relationships.</p>\n<p>Relevant factors which may be addressed include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender and cultural norms (for example, the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships, violence, or perception of attractiveness)</li>\n<li>proximity</li>\n<li>similarity</li>\n<li>reciprocity</li>\n<li>modelling</li>\n<li>social identity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Buss <em>et al.</em>’s (1990) study of cultural factors in attraction</li>\n<li>Newcomb’s (1961) field study of attitudes, similarity and liking</li>\n<li>Markey and Markey’s (2007) study on romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and relationship experience.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and/or cognitive factors in order to address the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of origins of conflict and/or conflict resolution.</p>\n<p>Origins of conflict may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>competition</li>\n<li>perceived injustice</li>\n<li>misperception.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant factors related to conflict resolution may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>styles of conflict resolution</li>\n<li>co-operation</li>\n<li>negotiation</li>\n<li>conflict management</li>\n<li>reference made to social cognition theory and Subido methodology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant theories/studies could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT)</li>\n<li>in-group identity model</li>\n<li>dual concern model</li>\n<li>Deutsch’s theory of co-operation and competition</li>\n<li>Sherif’s (1966) field experiment on competition in groups</li>\n<li>Chambers and De Dreu’s (2014) study on egocentrism and misunderstanding</li>\n<li>Sternberg and Dobson’s (1987) study on resolution of interpersonal conflicts</li>\n<li>Sternberg and Soriano’s (1984) study on styles of conflict resolution.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the role of egocentrism</li>\n<li>the effectiveness of the conflict resolution style</li>\n<li>gender considerations</li>\n<li>cultural considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "group-dynamics"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> studies related to promoting prosocial behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The concept of promoting prosocial behaviour refers to any method that develops prosocial behavior (<em>i.e.</em>, Subido Methodology) or a more general application of a model investigating factors investigating prosocial behavior <em>(i.e.</em>, Social Cognitive Theory suggesting the use of TV or video games).</p>\n<p>Relevant studies related to promoting prosocial behavior may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Luiselli <em>et al</em>.’s (2005) study evaluating the effectiveness of positive behavioral interventions and supports</li>\n<li>Elliott <em>et al</em>.’s (1999) study on the effects of the Responsive Classroom programme on students in elementary school</li>\n<li>Kleemans <em>et al</em>. (2015) study on the impact of prosocial television news on children’s prosocial behaviour in the Netherlands</li>\n<li>Flook <em>et al</em>.’s (2015) study on promoting prosocial behaviour in schoolchildren using mindfulness</li>\n<li>Layous <em>et al</em>.’s (2012) study on prompting prosocial behaviour in pre-adolescents</li>\n<li>Pollock’s (2014) field study done in Rwanda, concerning Subido methodology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>validity/reliability of the study/studies</li>\n<li>supporting and/or contradictory studies</li>\n<li>productivity of the study in generating further research</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>application of the research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the markbands independently, and could achieve up to full marks.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.</p>\n<p>Multitasking (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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>All 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.<br/><br/></p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of<br/>laptop multitasking in higher education.’ <em>Pédagogie Collégiale</em>, vol. <strong>27</strong>, no. 2, Winter 2014;<br/>http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Source 2: adapted from <em>Computers &amp; Education</em>, Vol. <strong>62</strong>, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston<br/>and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both<br/>users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;<br/>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Identify the research method used and outline <strong>two</strong> characteristics of the method.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Describe the sampling method used in the study.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving <strong>one</strong> reason for your choice.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for stating experiment (acceptable terms: lab experiment, controlled experiment, true experiment). Stating ‘experiment’ without specification is acceptable.</p>\n<p>Award <strong>[0]</strong> for field experiment, natural experiment, quasi experiment, field study.</p>\n<p>Answers related to characteristics of the experiment may include two of the following characteristics: <em>Award <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point, up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong></em>.</p>\n<p>Answers 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.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The lab experiment is designed to test a hypothesis (and null hypothesis).</li>\n<li>The lab experiment involves at least two conditions, the IV (in this paper a multitasking (listening to a lecture and complete 12 online tasks) or a non-multitasking condition) and DV (score on the test).</li>\n<li>Controls, for example for participant variables: the participants were randomly allocated into the two conditions by assigning them to a random seat number.</li>\n<li>The lab experiment can establish a cause-effect relationship between manipulation of the IV and its effect on the DV. The results of this experiment showed that participants in the multitasking condition scored significantly lower on the comprehension test than participants in the non-multitasking condition.</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> 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).</p>\n<p>Description of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics: <strong>[1] </strong>per relevant point. Maximum of <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Convenience (or opportunity) sampling is a non-probability sampling method, which means that participants are not chosen randomly.</li>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample consists of participants who represent the population of interest. In the case of the study in the stimulus material, the population is university students but the topic is of general interest.</li>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample consists of participants based on availability and willingness to participate.</li>\n<li>Convenience sampling is an easy and quick way to get a sample and often used in research at universities as in this study.</li>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample suffers from selection bias and is therefore not necessarily representative of the population being studied or to other populations.</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for naming an alternative or additional research method and <strong>[2]</strong> for rationale.</p>\n<p>Alternative/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:</p>\n<p><strong>A survey</strong></p>\n<p>Rationales for using surveys as an additional or alternative method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Using a survey as alternative method with random sampling of participants would be more representative of the population and easier to generalize results.</li>\n<li>A survey could ask students more specific questions related to multitasking, for example, how often they multitasked, or to what extent they experienced that multitasking impaired their learning, and/or the effectiveness of note taking when they multitask, <em>eg</em> texting or visiting Facebook during lectures.</li>\n<li>Data from a survey as an additional research method could be used to compare if the results of the experiment corresponded with students' own perception of a possible influence of multitasking on their learning. Students might respond that they can multitask and that their performance in class is not affected negatively.This could be compared with the result of the experiment.</li>\n<li>The survey as an additional method would add further data into a complex problem that researchers could then decide to explore using qualitative methods</li>\n<li>The survey enables a relatively rapid and inexpensive collection of a large amount of data.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Focus group interviews</strong></p>\n<p>Rationales for using focus group interviews as an additional or alternative method could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Exploring the student’s own perception of the issue of multitasking in class as an additional method. The facilitator would encourage the participants to share their views and experiences on multitasking during lectures. A qualitative approach such as this would give a more subjective view on multitasking and the effects students perceive on concentration and remembering. Such data could be compared to the findings of the experiment and thus give a more holistic view of the problem of multitasking during lectures.</li>\n<li>Data from focus groups on participants’ experiences of quality of learning during lectures with and without multitasking could give the researchers insight into aspects of the problem that they had not thought of themselves.</li>\n<li>Data from a focus group as an alternative method could give researchers an idea of how students perceive multitasking and then use these data for further research, perhaps using an experiment.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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).</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>In 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.</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Many 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.</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "research-methods-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.</p>\n<p>Multitasking (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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>All 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.<br/><br/></p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of<br/>laptop multitasking in higher education.’ <em>Pédagogie Collégiale</em>, vol. <strong>27</strong>, no. 2, Winter 2014;<br/>http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Source 2: adapted from <em>Computers &amp; Education</em>, Vol. <strong>62</strong>, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston<br/>and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both<br/>users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;<br/>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>For describing the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The researchers gave the participants a consent form to sign before the start of the study, in line with ethical guidelines in psychological research.</li>\n<li>The lecture was based on an ethically neutral (non-sensitive) topic.</li>\n<li>The participants were debriefed after they had completed the study. Therefore participants were fully informed about the study once the experiment was completed, including how the data would be used.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>For explaining further ethical considerations that could be applied: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made with a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Confidentiality and anonymity are important in all research. It may be difficult to ensure because students in this study sit close to one another in the simulated class setting. A way to deal with this could be to test students individually. In the context of this study it may be less important because there is not much personal information involved so it would be difficult to identify students from their data set.</li>\n<li>Participants should be informed that they could contact the researchers if they had any questions about the study, for example if they would like to know how the data would be used.</li>\n<li>Deception is used in the study. It must be clearly justified, for example, in a research ethics application form why (minor) deception is necessary in this particular study.</li>\n<li>Participants should be informed of their rights to withdraw from the research once it has started, as well as consequences of doing so. In this study, that was not done.</li>\n<li>Receiving course credit for participation in research is a common way to recruit participants at many universities. An ethical issue here is whether students feel coerced to participate. Students who do not wish to participate in this research should not be disadvantaged in any way and they should be offered a comparable alternative task to receive the same credits.</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point(s).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Answers 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "research-methods-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The stimulus material below is based on a study on the influence of multitasking on student learning.</p>\n<p>Multitasking (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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>All 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.<br/><br/></p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">[Source 1: Faria Sana, Melody Wiseheart and Tina Weston (2014). ‘The direct and indirect effects of<br/>laptop multitasking in higher education.’ <em>Pédagogie Collégiale</em>, vol. <strong>27</strong>, no. 2, Winter 2014;<br/>http://aqpc.qc.ca/sites/default/files/revue/Weston-Vol_27-2%2520%28A%29%2520.pdf</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Source 2: adapted from <em>Computers &amp; Education</em>, Vol. <strong>62</strong>, March 2013, Faria Sana, Tina Weston<br/>and Nicholas J. Cepeda, ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both<br/>users and nearby peers’, pp. 24–31, copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier;<br/>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub]</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p><em>Marks 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</em>.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Generalization 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion points related to the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study in the stimulus material could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The sampling method (a convenience sample). In this study the population is university students in North America enrolled in an introductory psychology course. The study used convenience sampling and students could sign up for participation in the study or not (self-selection). This means that it is a non-probability sample rather than a random sample (probability sampling).</li>\n<li>The sample was relatively small with only 40 participants and therefore the sample is not considered statistically representative of the population even though the researchers had recruited an even number of males and females.</li>\n<li>The fact that students received credit for participation could also result in selection bias. When there is requirement to participate, students may be more likely to sign up for one study and not another on the basis of a convenient appointment time, rather than because they are making an informed choice about the kind of study they want to participate in.</li>\n<li>If the researchers added more participants to the sample it would enhance the possibility of generalization, as well as adding to statistical power. The more participants, the greater the chance that differences between participants will be balanced out, and therefore generalization is more likely to happen.</li>\n<li>If replications of this study arrived at the same conclusion (planned replication) the potential for generalization is enhanced. If the same theory of cause-effect relationship between multitasking and lowered performance found support in additional studies it would be more likely to confirm validity of the original findings. The result of this experiment has been supported by previous research and this indicates some external validity of the findings.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates who use the terms generalization and transferability interchangeably should not be penalized.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker answers only addressed the actual sample – that is, describing students in North America, equal numbers of females and males, <em>etc</em>, 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.</p>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>Transference 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.</p>\n<p>Overall 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19M.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluating-research-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe neuroplasticity, with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rosenzweig, Bennett and Diamond’s (1972) study on the role of environmental factors on neuroplasticity</li>\n<li>Bremner <em>et al</em>.’s (2008) study on plasticity of the human brain in post-traumatic stress disorder</li>\n<li>Dragansky’s (2004) study of neuroplasticity in jugglers</li>\n<li>Maguire <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study on navigation (related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers)</li>\n<li>Tierney <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) study using PET scans to investigate language development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study related to neuroplasticity, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes a relevant study, but neuroplasticity is not addressed, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes neuroplasticity but does not describe an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study related to <strong>one</strong> model of memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Appropriate models of memory may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>Levels of Processing Model.</li>\n<li>Multi-Store Model of Memory</li>\n<li>Schema theory</li>\n<li>Working Memory Model</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Baddely and Hitch’s (1974) study on the Working Memory Model</li>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1924) study of the effect of schema on memory storage</li>\n<li>Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) study on the Levels of Processing Model.</li>\n<li>Glanzer and Cunitz’s (1966) study on the primacy and recency effects in free recall</li>\n<li>Milner’s (1966) case study of HM.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be awarded only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes an appropriate model of memory but does not refer to a relevant study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Outline social cognitive theory with reference to <strong>one</strong> relevant study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The learning outcome “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account of social cognitive theory in relation to one relevant study.</p>\n<p>The main aspects of social cognitive theory include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>imitation of role models</li>\n<li>the role of attention, retention, motivation and reproduction.</li>\n<li>self-efficacy</li>\n<li>vicarious learning</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses may refer to studies such as, but not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bandura <em>et al</em>.’s studies on aggression</li>\n<li>Joy, Kimball and Zabrack (1986) on aggression from television viewing</li>\n<li>Totten’s (2003) study on modelling of violent behaviour towards girlfriends</li>\n<li>Sprafkin <em>et al</em>.’s (1975) study on children’s prosocial behaviour and television model</li>\n<li>Fagot <em>et al</em>.’s (1992) study on parental influences on gender development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p>If a candidate outlines social cognitive theory without making reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes a relevant study without outlining social cognitive theory, up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong> should be awarded.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one</strong> evolutionary explanation of <strong>one</strong> behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one evolutionary explanation of one behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant behaviour that could be discussed includes, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>human mating behaviours (Buss, 1990)</li>\n<li>emotions (for example, disgust, Fessler, 2006; universality of emotional expressions, Ekman and Frieson, 1971)</li>\n<li>abnormal behaviour (for example, depression, Andrews and Thompson, 2009; phobias, Seligman, 1971)</li>\n<li>prosocial behaviour (Dawkins, 1976).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>examining the underlying assumptions</li>\n<li>the validity of evidence in support of the explanation</li>\n<li>discussion of its strengths and limitations</li>\n<li>the difficulties of carrying out empirical research</li>\n<li>the debate of generalizing from animals to human behaviour</li>\n<li>the role of culture in behaviour</li>\n<li>limitations of a reductionist argument</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses more than one specific behaviour, credit should be given only to the first behaviour addressed.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> <strong>or more</strong> ethical considerations related to <strong>one</strong> study investigating the reliability of <strong>one</strong> cognitive process.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to give a considered review of ethical considerations related to one study investigating the reliability of one cognitive process.</p>\n<p>Cognitive processes may include, but are not limited to, memory, thinking and decision-making.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anonymity</li>\n<li>debriefing</li>\n<li>deception</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>right to withdraw</li>\n<li>undue stress or harm</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The reliability of a cognitive process is the extent to which it is open to distortion. Some schema studies are appropriate (<em>eg</em> Bartlett’s (1932) War of the Ghosts), whereas others do not address distortion (<em>eg</em> Bransford and Johnson, 1972).</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown and Kulik’s (1977) study on flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study on reconstructive memory in relation to eyewitness testimony</li>\n<li>Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) study on heuristics and biases.</li>\n<li>Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study on stress and eyewitness testimony</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussions may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The justification of how ethical considerations were resolved – for example, why was deception used?</li>\n<li>How ethical considerations may limit the ability to carry out research</li>\n<li>Why ethical considerations are important – for example, with regard to a specific study, why is the anonymity of the participants important?</li>\n<li>Using a cost/benefit analysis when undertaking research</li>\n<li>How ethical considerations/guidelines have changed over time.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate only discusses one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses more than one study, credit should be given to the first study addressed.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses more than one cognitive process, credit should be given to the first cognitive process addressed.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>one</strong> research method to investigate individuals and groups.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em><em>. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one particular research method linked to the study of individuals and groups.</p>\n<p>Research 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.</p>\n<p>The discussion should centre around social and not cultural aspects of behaviour.</p>\n<p>Examples of research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Asch’s (1951) experiment on conformity</li>\n<li>Zimbardo’s (1973) observation of conformity to social roles</li>\n<li>Tajfel’s (1971) experiment on minimal group paradigm</li>\n<li>Sherif’s (1954) “Robbers Cave” field experiment investigating the realistic conflict theory</li>\n<li>Howarth’s (2002) focus-group interviews investigating social identity based on group belonging.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>an evaluation of the type of data received (qualitative versus quantitative)</li>\n<li>the appropriateness of the method for the aim</li>\n<li>issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the importance of replication</li>\n<li>cause and effect versus correlation</li>\n<li>reductionist vs holistic approach to understanding behaviour</li>\n<li>the importance of internal versus ecological validity</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of experiments (laboratory, field or quasi/natural) should be considered as only one method.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.SL.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "discuss-how-globalization-may-influence-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how globalization may influence behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of globalization on behaviour.</p>\n<p>Behaviour in this instance may include attitudes, identities or any other accepted behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adams (2003) on cultural values in the USA and Canada converging over time</li>\n<li>Buchan <em>et al</em>. (2009) on globalization and cooperation</li>\n<li>Gupta’s (2011) research on the effect of globalization in consumer behaviour</li>\n<li>Jensen, Arnett and McKenzie’s (2011) research on globalization and cultural identity, which explains that globalization has fostered the occurrence of a new period of life, <em>emerging adulthood</em>, related to issues of identity</li>\n<li>Ogihara &amp; Uchida (2014) on the effects of globalization on subjective well-being</li>\n<li>Norasakkunkit &amp; Uchida (2014); Becker <em>et al</em>. (2002) on the effects of globalization on mental health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological difficulties in measuring and testing the effect of globalization.</li>\n<li>the inability to establish a cause and effect relationship</li>\n<li>studies of the effects of globalization are relatively recent and often have not been replicated</li>\n<li>the difficulty of generalizing the findings of such studies</li>\n<li>the reliance on self-reported data is open to demand characteristics.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.1.HL.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-influence-of-globalization-on-individual-attitudes-identities-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the role of <strong>two or more</strong> clinical biases in diagnosis.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of clinical biases in diagnosis.</p>\n<p>Examples of clinical bias may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>societal norms</li>\n<li>classification systems (<em>eg</em> Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM)</li>\n<li>ethical considerations</li>\n<li>racial/ethnic/cultural/gender considerations and bias</li>\n<li>clinician and patient variables (<em>eg</em> reporting bias, somatization)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hartung and Widiger’s (1998) study of gender differences bias in diagnosis</li>\n<li>Rutjes’s (2005) study about sources of bias and variation in diagnosis</li>\n<li>Elstein’s (1999) study of heuristics and biases</li>\n<li>Kendall and Cooper’s (1971) study of cultural bias in clinical diagnosis</li>\n<li>Cwik <em>et al</em>.’s (2016) study on diagnostic accuracy and gender biases</li>\n<li>Ransohoff and Feinstein’s (1978) study on bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests</li>\n<li>Davis-Coelho <em>et al</em>.’s (2000) study on bias in diagnosing obese clients.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one clinical bias in diagnosis, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Contrast <strong>two</strong> explanations of <strong>one or more</strong> disorders.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The disorder(s) chosen must come from the list in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Explanations contrasted may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cognitive explanations</li>\n<li>biological explanations</li>\n<li>social cognitive explanations</li>\n<li>genetic explanations</li>\n<li>psychoanalytic explanations</li>\n<li>biopsychosocial explanations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Although not limited to the following, factors that might be considered when contrasting two explanations include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>genetic factors</li>\n<li>biochemical factors</li>\n<li>cognitive style</li>\n<li>cognitive distortion and bias</li>\n<li>cultural factors</li>\n<li>environmental factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Henninger <em>et al</em>.’s (1996) study on reducing serotonin levels in healthy individuals</li>\n<li>Nurnberg and Gershon’s (1982) review of seven twin studies on major depression</li>\n<li>Boury <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) correlation between amount of negative automatic thoughts and the severity of depression</li>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1978) study on social factors of depression</li>\n<li>Kendler <em>et al</em>.’s (1991) twin research on genetic vulnerability in bulimia nervosa</li>\n<li>Jaeger <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) cross-cultural study on the relationship between body dissatisfaction and development of bulimia</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate only discusses two explanations of one disorder without presenting a contrast, the response should be awarded a maximum of up to <strong>[3]</strong> for Criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "etiology-of-abnormal-psychology"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the effectiveness of <strong>one or more</strong> treatments.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cooper <em>et al</em>.’s (2003) study on short and long-term effects of psychological treatment on post-partum depression</li>\n<li>Neale <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) meta-analysis of studies of the outcome of using antidepressants versus placebos</li>\n<li>Elkin <em>et al</em>.’s (1989) outcome study of treatment for depression</li>\n<li>MacDermut <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) meta-analysis of the effectiveness of group therapy for depression</li>\n<li>Pampallona <em>et al</em>.’s (2004) study on the efficacy of drug treatment alone versus drug treatment and psychotherapy in depression</li>\n<li>Vocks <em>et al</em>.’s (2010) meta-analysis of the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological treatments for binge-eating disorder.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluative points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>short-term versus long-term efficacy</li>\n<li>side-effects of treatment</li>\n<li>cost of treatment</li>\n<li>age and gender considerations</li>\n<li>focus of treatment (symptom versus cause)</li>\n<li>non-compliance</li>\n<li>methodological considerations of studies assessing effectiveness of treatment (small samples,no control group, no random allocation of patients and possibility of researcher bias).</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does childhood trauma affect development?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies of childhood trauma on development include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effects of deprivation in critical periods (the cases of Genie/Anna/Isabelle)</li>\n<li>PTSD as a consequence of trauma (Feldman and Vengrober, 2011; Luo <em>et al</em>., 2012)</li>\n<li>Rutter <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) and Rutter’s (1981) studies on the consequences of deprivation</li>\n<li>Cockett and Tripp’s (1994) study on long-term attachment deprivation effects</li>\n<li>Koluchova’s case study showing the possibility of reversing the effects of deprivation.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>It 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”.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> theories of gender identity development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more theories of gender identity development.</p>\n<p>Theories discussed may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>biosocial theory of gender development (<em>eg</em> Money and Ehrhardt, 1972)</li>\n<li>social cognitive theory (<em>eg</em> Bandura, 1977)</li>\n<li>gender schema theory (<em>eg</em> Martin and Halvorson, 1978)</li>\n<li>social role theory (<em>eg</em> Eagly, 1987)</li>\n<li>theories of transgender identity (<em>eg</em> Nagoshi and Brzuzy, 2010)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>examining the underlying assumptions of gender identity development</li>\n<li>evidence in support of the theories</li>\n<li>discussion of strengths and limitations of the theory/theories</li>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations of the supporting studies.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-an-identity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> theories of brain development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>theory of neuroplasticity</li>\n<li>maturational theory of brain development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Chugani’s (1999) study of PET scans and glucose metabolism in newborns</li>\n<li>Giedd’s (2004) longitudinal study of healthy children using MRI scans</li>\n<li>Waber’s (2007) longitudinal study of normal brain development using MRI scans</li>\n<li>Strathearn <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) study of delayed cognitive development and head growth.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the theory</li>\n<li>productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural, and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary explanations</li>\n<li>applications of the theory</li>\n<li>ethical concerns regarding research</li>\n<li>relevance of animal models for human brain development.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-as-a-learner"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate the biopsychosocial model of health and well-being.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Hoffman and Driscoll’s (2000) study on health promotion and disease prevention</li>\n<li>Engel’s (1978) study on the biopsychosocial model and education of health professionals</li>\n<li>Cohen and Koenig’s (2003) study on religion and the biopsychosocial model of health and ageing</li>\n<li>Hatala’s (2012) study on the status of the biopsychosocial model in health psychology.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>alternative/contrary explanations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the model</li>\n<li>productivity of the model in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural, and gender considerations</li>\n<li>reductionist versus holistic conceptualizations of health</li>\n<li>applications of the model.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "determinants-of-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> explanations of <strong>one or more</strong> health problems.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates are likely to write about health problems presented in the psychology guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Steptoe and Marmot’s (2003) study of biopsychosocial aspects of stress</li>\n<li>Burman and Margolin’s (1992) study on the association between marital relationships and health problems</li>\n<li>Reed et al.’s (1999) study connecting HIV positive people and pessimism</li>\n<li>Iwasaki and Smale’s (1998) longitudinal analyses of relationships and chronic health problems.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the explanation</li>\n<li>productivity of the explanation in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>methodological, cultural, and gender considerations</li>\n<li>contrary/alternative explanations</li>\n<li>applications of the explanation</li>\n<li>supporting and contradicting evidence.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> health promotion programmes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The health promotion programme(s) chosen are likely to relate to one or more of the health problems presented in the psychology guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>obesity</li>\n<li>addiction</li>\n<li>chronic pain</li>\n<li>sexual health.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant health promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the Victoria (Australia) campaign, “Go for your life” promoting healthy eating and exercise in schools (2004)</li>\n<li>the Florida (US) campaign, “TRUTH” an anti-smoking campaign arranged by and aimed at adolescents (1998-1999)</li>\n<li>the Canadian community-based peer intervention program to prevent pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol (Carr, 1994)</li>\n<li>programmes based on social learning theory (for example, the Sabido method to encourage safe sex practices)</li>\n<li>Project SMART (US), promoting positive health decisions in middle school aged children.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Evaluation points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>alternative programmes</li>\n<li>whether or not the programme is based on a psychological health model/theory</li>\n<li>cultural and ethical considerations in implementation</li>\n<li>methodological concerns in measuring programmes’ outcomes</li>\n<li>empirical evidence related to effectiveness of the programme.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> research methods used in the study of personal relationships.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of research methods used in the study of personal relationships.</p>\n<p>Relevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>interviews (<em>eg</em> focus group, semi-structured)</li>\n<li>naturalistic observations</li>\n<li>correlational studies (<em>eg</em> surveys)</li>\n<li>case study</li>\n<li>experiments.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of studies that may be used could include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flora and Segrin’s (2003) study, using interviews, of the relational history in married and dating couples</li>\n<li>Gupta and Singh’s (1982) study interviewing couples in love relationships and arranged marriages</li>\n<li>Glenn’s (2005) study using interviews and questionnaires to investigate cultural grounding of personal relationships</li>\n<li>Gatter and Hodkinson’s (2016) study of Tinder versus online dating agencies, using correlational design with a convenience sample and snowball sampling</li>\n<li>Levenson and Gottman’s (1983) observational study of marital dissatisfaction.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>demand characteristics/social desirability effect in self-reported studies</li>\n<li>experimental research may lack ecological validity</li>\n<li>issues and problems related to gender and cross-cultural differences</li>\n<li>sampling bias</li>\n<li>validity and reliability</li>\n<li>ethical considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.10",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "personal-relationships"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent does the sociocultural approach contribute to the understanding of group dynamics?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of the sociocultural approach to understanding group dynamics.</p>\n<p>It 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”.</p>\n<p>Sociocultural factors in understanding group dynamics could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>in-group and out-group – competition and cooperation between the groups</li>\n<li>integrated threat theory</li>\n<li>stereotyping</li>\n<li>intergroup dynamics.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Drury and Reicher’s (1999) study of intergroup dynamics</li>\n<li>Brewer’s (1999) study of in-group loyalty and out-group bias</li>\n<li>Abrams <em>et al</em>.’s (2003) study of subjective group dynamics and in-group bias</li>\n<li>Fiske <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) model of (often mixed) stereotype content</li>\n<li>Haslam and Reicher’s (2006) study on inter- and intra-group dynamics related tosocial identity</li>\n<li>Tajfel’s (1971) study on ingroup/outgroup.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.11",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "group-dynamics"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss by-standerism, with reference to <strong>one or more</strong> studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” asks candidates to offer a considered review of by-standerism.</p>\n<p>Factors influencing by-standerism could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>diffusion of responsibility</li>\n<li>pluralistic ignorance</li>\n<li>empathy</li>\n<li>norms and social roles</li>\n<li>cost-reward</li>\n<li>dispositional factors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Latane and Darley’s (1968) study to investigate bystander intervention and diffusion of responsibility</li>\n<li>Pillavin <em>et al</em>.’s (1969) field experiment investigating variables in helping behaviour</li>\n<li>Oliner and Oliner’s (1988) study investigating dispositional factors and personal norms in helping holocaust victims</li>\n<li>Fischer <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) meta-analysis on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies</li>\n<li>Soo Hoo’s (2009) study on by-standerism in school bullying</li>\n<li>Tamburri’s (2014) study on a by-standerism intervention programme targeting sexual assault</li>\n<li>Ploetner<em> et al</em>.’s (2015) study on bystander effect in young children in helping situations</li>\n<li>Manning and Levine’s (2007) Kitty Genovese archival case study.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion could include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>cognitive interpretation of the situation</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>a comparison of different explanations</li>\n<li>Manning and Collins’s (2007) discussion on the Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping which questioned the basis of bystander research.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Studies 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.2.BP.TZ0.12",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-psychology-of-human-relationships"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "social-responsibility"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Previous 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Condition 1 (math-test): participants were told that they would take an easy standardized math test for a study on gender and mathematical performance.<br/><br/></li>\n<li>Condition 2 (math-test and teaching intervention): participants received the same instructions as in condition 1, but the researcher also gave a brief lecture on the stereotype threat and said that women could experience anxiety due to the negative stereotypes of women and math. However, a stereotype had nothing to do with them and how well they might do on the test.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>All participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.</p>\n<p>The results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.<br/>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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Identify the research method used and outline<strong> two</strong> characteristics of the method.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Describe the sampling method used in the study.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving <strong>one</strong> reason for your choice.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for stating lab experiment (or true experiment). Stating ‘experiment’ without specification is acceptable.</p>\n<p>Answers related to characteristics of the method may include two of the following characteristics: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point. Maximum of <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>\n<p>Answers 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.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>A lab experiment involves random allocation of participants to the experimental groups (alternative: to the exposure of the independent variable).</li>\n<li>An experiment involves at least two conditions. In this study condition 1 was the “math-test” condition alone, and condition 2 was the “math-test and teaching intervention”.</li>\n<li>The IV was whether participants were exposed to the teaching intervention or not, and the DV was the score on the math test.</li>\n<li>An experiment has a hypothesis: the hypothesis was that female participants in condition 2 (with the teaching intervention) would score higher on the math test than female participants in condition 1 (without the teaching intervention).</li>\n<li>A lab experiment is characterized by rigorous control to avoid confounding variables, for example, participant variables. The participants were randomly allocated into the two groups.</li>\n<li>The lab experiment can establish a cause-effect relationship between manipulation of the IV and its effect on the DV. In this study there was a causal relationship between the IV (learning about stereotype threat) and the DV (scores on the math test).</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for stating convenience (or opportunity) sampling.</p>\n<p>Description of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point. Maximum of <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample consists of participants representing the population of interest. In the case of the study in the stimulus material, the population is female university students and the topic is of general interest (stereotype threat related to math performance).</li>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample consists of participants based on availability and willingness to participate. It is an easy and quick way to get a sample and often used in research at universities as in this study.</li>\n<li>Convenience (or opportunity) sampling is a non-probability sampling method, which means that participants are not chosen randomly.</li>\n<li>A convenience/opportunity sample suffers from selection bias and is therefore not necessarily representative of the population being studied (may lack population validity)</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point(s).</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for naming an alternative or additional research method and <strong>[2]</strong> for rationale.</p>\n<p>Alternative or additional research methods include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<p><strong>Focus group interviews</strong></p>\n<p>Rationales for using focus group interviews could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The female students' own perception of stereotype threat in relation to math and test anxiety could be explored. The facilitator would encourage the participants to share their views and experiences of anxiety and lack of confidence in math.</li>\n<li>This qualitative approach would give a subjective view on each participant’s experiences with stereotypes, and how this might have affected their performance.</li>\n<li>The qualitative data could supplement the experimental data and give the researchers insight into aspects of the stereotype threat that they had not thought of themselves or, initiate further experimental research based on the findings of the focus group interviews.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>Semi-structured interviews</strong></p>\n<p>Rationales for using semi-structured interviews could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Semi-structured interviews could make a valuable contribution to an overall understanding of issues involved in gender stereotypes and math. The use of semi-structured interviews gives the participants the possibility to provide in-depth answers and to elaborate on specific points.</li>\n<li>The inductive content analysis of the semi-structured interview may reveal themes related to everyday stereotyping or negative expectations in relation to women and math that could contribute to a deeper understanding of the problem than that found in an experiment.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n[N/A]\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n[N/A]\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n[N/A]\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "research-methods-(hl-p3-only)",
      "elements-of-researching-behavior-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Previous 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Condition 1 (math-test): participants were told that they would take an easy standardized math test for a study on gender and mathematical performance.<br/><br/></li>\n<li>Condition 2 (math-test and teaching intervention): participants received the same instructions as in condition 1, but the researcher also gave a brief lecture on the stereotype threat and said that women could experience anxiety due to the negative stereotypes of women and math. However, a stereotype had nothing to do with them and how well they might do on the test.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>All participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.</p>\n<p>The results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.<br/>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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>For describing the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The participants signed a consent form before the start of the study and agreed to participate. They were only informed that the study was about math and gender so there was slight deception involved.</li>\n<li>They were guaranteed the right to withdraw from the study at any time and/or withdraw their data at any time as part of consent.</li>\n<li>They were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity as part of consent.</li>\n<li>The participants were debriefed after they had completed the study. This is to ensure that the participants leave the study with a full understanding of it and in the same condition as they entered it.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>For explaining further ethical considerations that could be applied: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>In principle, participants should be fully informed about the aim and procedures of the study, but this was not done here because this would make it impossible to conduct this particular study. For example, participants were not told the purpose of writing their gender on the paper. This would serve as a primer and is known to create anxiety in females before a math test because of the stereotype threat.</li>\n<li>In a study like this one, on quite a sensitive issue that could potentially stress the female participants, they should have been told that they could contact the researchers if they had any questions about the study. The researchers should make sure that the female participants did not suffer any psychological harm.</li>\n<li>Deception is used in the study. It must be clearly justified in a research ethics application form why (minor) deception is necessary in this particular study.</li>\n<li>The researcher could inform participants during debriefing that they could still withdraw their data. Participants may not feel they can leave the study because they have given consent.</li>\n<li>Students may feel coerced to participate when they receive extra credit. Students who do not wish to participate in this research should not be disadvantaged in any way and they should be offered a comparable alternative task to receive the same credits.</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point(s).</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "elements-of-researching-behavior-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Previous 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Condition 1 (math-test): participants were told that they would take an easy standardized math test for a study on gender and mathematical performance.<br/><br/></li>\n<li>Condition 2 (math-test and teaching intervention): participants received the same instructions as in condition 1, but the researcher also gave a brief lecture on the stereotype threat and said that women could experience anxiety due to the negative stereotypes of women and math. However, a stereotype had nothing to do with them and how well they might do on the test.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>All participants were asked to write their gender on the tests, and then they had 30 minutes to complete the math test.</p>\n<p>The results showed that participants in condition 1 scored lower than participants in condition 2.<br/>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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered and balanced review of how a researcher could avoid bias.</p>\n<p>Biases in research may originate from design of the experiment, the researchers, as well as the participants.</p>\n<p>Possible ways for the researcher to avoid bias in this study could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Researchers could reduce bias by having a well-designed research protocol that explicitly outlines how data is collected and analysed in this experiment.</li>\n<li>The researcher could conduct a pilot study in order to test the suitability of the overall design, procedures and measures used in the experiment (for example, with regard to operationalization of variables) to see if a cause–effect relationship can be established between the IV and the DV (internal validity) .This would also help to see if all possible confounding variables have been taken into account. However, a pilot study may not be possible due to time restraints or lack of resources.</li>\n<li>A pilot study is an important step in ensuring construct validity, that is, making sure that the study in question actually is measuring ‘stereotype threat’ in relation to math so that the results can be generalized and used for prediction.</li>\n<li>Sampling bias (selection bias) is a danger in the case of a non-probability sample, as in this study. Although sampling bias may occur when participants in a sample are not selected randomly, but participants can then be randomly allocated to the experimental conditions in order to control for participant bias. This was also done in this study. Random allocation may increase the possibility of generalization. Another way to avoid sampling bias is to have a random sample but this is often not done in research like this one with a student sample.</li>\n<li>To prevent experimenter bias (researcher bias, the Rosenthal effect), the researcher could ensure that the experimenter is blind to the hypothesis of the study. This would help prevent threats to external validity. The researcher should also be aware of personal biases when formulating a research question and analysing data.</li>\n<li>The researcher can control for demand characteristics (<em>i.e.</em> participants respond to cues in the experiment, which somehow tell them what is expected of them) or the Hawthorne effect (<em>i.e.</em> the mere fact of being in a study makes participants perform better). This could affect their behaviour in this experiment and thus affect internal validity of the study. A possible way to control for this is using some degree of deception, which was also the case in this experiment.</li>\n<li>The researcher could control for bias related to having a male experimenter in a study with only female participants by having a female experimenter conduct the experiment. This was also the case in this study.</li>\n<li>The researcher could try to avoid confirmation bias and gender bias during analysis of data by having other researchers participate in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data (researcher triangulation). This is important with regard to generalization of results, especially in a study with a single sex sample and a sensitive topic related to stereotyping.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Arguments based on a conceptual framework related to qualitative research, for example, personal reflexivity should not be credited.</p>\n<p>Marks 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "19N.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "evaluating-research-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> twin or kinship study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account or summary of one twin or kinship (family) study.</p>\n<p>The 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Skre <em>et al</em>.’s (1993) twin study investigating genetic influences on anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>Holland <em>et al</em>.’s (1988) twin study investigating genetic influence on anorexia</li>\n<li>Kendler <em>et al</em>.’s (2006) twin study investigating a genetic influence on depression</li>\n<li>The “Minnesota Twin Study”, <em>eg</em>, Bouchard <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) study into genetic influences in intelligence</li>\n<li>Tobi <em>et al</em>.’s (2018) Dutch Hunger Winter study on epigenetics, obesity, and heart disease</li>\n<li>True <em>et al</em>.’s (1993) twin study investigating genetic influences on PTSD symptoms among U.S. Vietnam veterans</li>\n<li>Weissman <em>et al</em>.’s (2005) kinship study of MDD</li>\n<li>Yehuda <em>et al</em>.’s (2000, 1998) kinship studies investigating symptoms of PTSD among adult children of Holocaust survivors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates are not required to state exact concordance rates in order to be awarded full marks.</p>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one twin or kinship study, credit should be given only to the first description.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "genetics-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With reference to <strong>one</strong> study, outline <strong>one</strong> model of memory.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of one memory model.</p>\n<p>Relevant models may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flashbulb memory theory</li>\n<li>Levels of processing model</li>\n<li>Multi-Store Model of Memory</li>\n<li>Schema theory</li>\n<li>Working Memory Model.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) studies on the evidence of working memory</li>\n<li>Bartlett’s (1932) study of the role of schema on memory storage</li>\n<li>Craik and Lockhart’s (1975) study of the Levels of Processing Model</li>\n<li>Peterson and Peterson (1959) on the role of rehearsal and memory consolidation</li>\n<li>Murdock’s (1962) or Glanzer &amp; Cunitz’s (1966) studies on the serial position effect</li>\n<li>Studies of brain damage to support the theory: Milner’s (1966) study of HM; Warrington and Shallice’s (1974) study of KF.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate outlines one model of memory without reference to one study, award up to a maximum of <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If a candidate addresses a relevant study without outlining a model of memory, award up to a maximum of <strong>[4]</strong>.</p>\n<p>If 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe <strong>one</strong> study investigating cultural norms.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of a study investigating cultural norms.</p>\n<p>The description of the study should include the aim, procedure, results, and conclusions of the study.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Berry and Katz’s (1967) study on cultural norms as a factor in conformity</li>\n<li>Cole and Scriber (1974) on education norms and memory strategies</li>\n<li>Fagot (1978), Wood (2002) on enculturation of gender norms.</li>\n<li>Finkelstein (2010) the effect of individual and collectivism on reasons for volunteer behaviour</li>\n<li>Miller <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) study on the impact of cultural norms and moral values on the perception of social responsibility</li>\n<li>Odden and Rochat (2004) on social cognitive theory and development of cultural norms</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.</p>\n<p> </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-sociocultural-approach-to-understanding-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-individual-and-the-group"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the formation of stereotypes and/or the effect(s) of stereotypes on human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Explanations for the formation of stereotypes may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Grain of truth hypothesis (Campbell, 1967)</li>\n<li>Illusory correlation: Hamilton and Gifford (1976)</li>\n<li>Social Identity Theory: Hilliard and Liben (2010); Johnson, Schaller and Mullen (2000), Park and Rothbart (1982)</li>\n<li>Social cognitive theory: gatekeepers, personal experience, media</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Effects of stereotypes on human behaviour may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Memory distortion (Allport and Postman (1947); Martin and Halvorson (1983)</li>\n<li>Misdiagnosis in mental health (Zhang, 1998; Van Ryn and Burke, 2000)</li>\n<li>Stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson, 1995; Shih <em>et al</em>, 1999)</li>\n<li>Prejudice and discrimination against individuals (<em>eg</em> Duncan, 1976; Buckhout, 1974; Gibbins, 1969) </li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations (Shewach <em>et al</em>., 2019)</li>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>methodological considerations</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may discuss only the formation of stereotypes or only the effect(s) of stereotypes. Both approaches are equally acceptable.</p>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n[N/A]\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effect of <strong>one or more</strong> neurotransmitters on behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the effect of neurotransmitters on behaviour.</p>\n<p>Behaviour in this instance may include emotion, motivation, memory or any other accepted behaviour.</p>\n<p>Neurotransmitters and relevant effects on behaviour include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the effect of serotonin in regulation of mood</li>\n<li>the effect of dopamine in motivation and the experience of pleasure</li>\n<li>the effect of acetylcholine in memory.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates may use animal studies to discuss neurotransmitters as long as the discussion focuses on a behaviour.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rogers and Kesner (2003); Antonova (2011) on the role of acetylcholine in memory</li>\n<li>Crockett <em>et al</em>. (2010) on the effect of serotonin on prosocial behaviour</li>\n<li>Passamonti <em>et al</em>.’s (2012) study on the effect of tryptophan depletion on amygdala activity in relation to fear</li>\n<li>Fisher, Aron, and Brown’s (2005) study on the role of dopaminergic pathways in romantic love.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>difficulties in carrying out research on neurotransmission</li>\n<li>generalizability of animal research to human behaviour</li>\n<li>ethical considerations in research into the effects of neurotransmitters</li>\n<li>the use of a reductionist approach to explain complex human behaviours</li>\n<li>the interaction of environmental and biological factors in behaviour</li>\n<li>applications of our understanding of the effect of neurotransmitters on behaviour, such as in the treatment of psychological disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.SL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>two</strong> <strong>or more</strong> ethical considerations in research investigating the link between emotion and cognition.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates may refer to cognitive processes such as memory, thinking and decision-making, and schema.</p>\n<p>Ethical considerations may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>protection of participants during the study</li>\n<li>right to withdraw</li>\n<li>deceptive practices</li>\n<li>confidentiality of participant information</li>\n<li>informed consent</li>\n<li>debriefing.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Brown &amp; Kulik’s (1977) study on flashbulb memory</li>\n<li>Neisser and Harsch’s (1992) study testing flashbulb memory theory with regard to the Challenger space shuttle explosion</li>\n<li>Talarico and Rubin’s (2003) study testing flashbulb memory theory with respect to 9/11</li>\n<li>Speisman <em>et al</em>.’s (1964) study on cognitive appraisal.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why deception is used</li>\n<li>the role of informed consent</li>\n<li>the necessity of protecting participants from harm</li>\n<li>decisions as to why certain ethical guidelines were/were not followed</li>\n<li>changes over time in adherence to ethical standards/guidelines.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If a candidate discusses only one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion B: knowledge and understanding. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.SL.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "emotion-and-cognition"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>With reference to research investigating the brain, discuss the role of animal research in understanding human behaviour.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Research that can be used to support the discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Meaney <em>et al</em> (2000) on the role of cortisol on the hippocampus with regard to memory</li>\n<li>Rogers and Kesner (2003) on the role of acetylcholine in formation of spatial memories</li>\n<li>Klein (2008) on the role of exercise on neuroplasticity in rats</li>\n<li>Rosenzweig, Bennett, and Diamond’s (1972) study on the effect social interaction and the development of rats’ brains</li>\n<li>Weiskrantz’s (1956) study of amygdalar lesioning and the fear response in rhesus monkeys</li>\n<li>Lashley (1929) study on localization of memory in mice.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Alternatives to animal research</li>\n<li>Justifications for using animals over human participants in research</li>\n<li>Key differences between animal and human physiology and behaviour</li>\n<li>methodological considerations and generalizability of animal research</li>\n<li>Operationalization of variables in animal research (<em>e.g.</em> studies of effects of stress on the brain)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>The 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 (<em>e.g.</em> memory, depression, aggression) and/or explained relevant human research to show the link to human behaviour.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.HL.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-biological-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "the-brain-and-behaviour"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the influence of technology on <strong>one or more</strong> cognitive processes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em> </p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of technology on cognitive processes.</p>\n<p>Technology is a broad term that includes the use of computers, the Internet and social media, mobile phones, video games, and virtual reality.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sparrow <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) study of transactive memory</li>\n<li>Rosen <em>et al</em> (2011, 2013) on the effect of multi-tasking on memory recall</li>\n<li>Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) on computer assisted notetaking and memory</li>\n<li>Storm <em>et al</em> (2016) on the Google effect</li>\n<li>Blacker <em>et al</em> (2014) on the effect of video games on visual working memory</li>\n<li>Swing <em>et al</em> (2010) on the effect of screen time on attention</li>\n<li>Kaspersky Lab’s (2015) study on digital amnesia.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The balance between ecological and internal validity in evaluating research</li>\n<li>Biological explanations of why technology may affect cognitive processes</li>\n<li>The difficulty of establishing causal relationships</li>\n<li>Issues of researcher bias</li>\n<li>Linking research to cognitive models of processes - <em>e.g.</em> the working memory model</li>\n<li>Researcher and participant biases</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>There 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.\"</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Some research was quite complex and was misunderstood by candidates for example, there were many inaccurate explanations of Rosser <em>et al</em> (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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.1.HL.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-cognitive-approach-to-understanding-behaviour"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "cognitive-processing"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Individually, 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”.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Identify the research method used and outline <strong>two</strong> characteristics of the method.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Describe the sampling method used in the study.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px;\">\n<p>Suggest <strong>one</strong> alternative <strong>or one</strong> additional research method that could be used to investigate the aim of the original study, giving <strong>one</strong> reason for your choice.</p>\n<div class=\"marks\">[3]</div>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p><em>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for identification of correct research method</em>.</p>\n<p>Experiment (<em>accept also: lab experiment; true experiment</em>)</p>\n<p><em>Answers related to an outline of characteristics of the method may include two of the following characteristics: <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point. Maximum of <strong>[2]</strong></em>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The experimental method involves at least <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">two conditions</span>. In this study, there were two conditions: social exclusion and social inclusion.</li>\n<li>The experiment is based on a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">hypothesis</span> that predicts a causal relationship between the IV and the DV.</li>\n<li>The experiment (true experiment) involves <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">random allocation</span> of participants to the experimental group (also accept: to the exposure of the IV).</li>\n<li>The experiment can establish a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">cause-effect relationship</span> between manipulation of the IV and levels of the DV.</li>\n<li>The experimental method involves control for <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">confounding variables</span>, for example, for participant variables to avoid bias</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p><em>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for naming the correct sampling method</em>.</p>\n<p>Convenience sampling (<em>accept also: opportunity sample; volunteer sample; self-selected sample</em>) <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>\n<p><em>Description of the sampling method may include two of the following characteristics</em>:<em> Award <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point, up to a maximum of <strong>[2]</strong></em>.</p>\n<p>Descriptions of the sampling method used in the study could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>A convenience sample is a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">non-probability</span> sample where members of the population who meet certain practical criteria (such as geographical proximity, similarity or willingness to participate) are selected.</li>\n<li>It is an <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">easy</span> way to get a sample for the researcher. This was also the case in this study where the sample consisted of psychology university students who were available and participated for course credits.</li>\n<li>A convenience sample is <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">cost-effective and saves time</span> compared to gathering a random sample.</li>\n<li>A convenience sample suffers from <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">self-selection bias</span>. The sample is not considered representative of a target population and the findings <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">cannot easily be generalized</span> if at all.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p><em>Award <strong>[1]</strong> for naming an alternative or additional research method, and up to <strong>[2]</strong> for reason with rationale</em>.</p>\n<p><em>The 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</em>.</p>\n<p>Suitable alternative or additional research methods could be but are not limited to:</p>\n<p><strong>Focus group interviews</strong><br/>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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>This is a different way to explore how people’s perceptions of social exclusion influence prosocial behaviour. The facilitator would encourage the participants to share their experiences, including emotions, in situations in which they had felt socially excluded.</li>\n<li>This qualitative approach could give a more subjective view on what the threat of exclusion feels like and how this could potentially affect human behaviour.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><strong>A semi-structured interview</strong><br/>Reasons (with rationale) for using a semi-structured interview as an alternative/additional method could be but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The semi-structured interview is based on an interview guide with a list of potential questions and topics that need to be covered during the interview. The focus of this research was a possible relationship between social exclusion and lack of prosocial behaviour and it can be considered a very sensitive topic. Therefore, a semi-structured one-to-one interview could be more appropriate if the researcher wants to explore how individuals experienced social exclusion and how that affected them.</li>\n<li>The semi-structured interview is flexible. There are both closed and open-ended questions and the interviewer can ask respondents to elaborate on answers, which could potentially lead to a better understanding of participants' own subjective understanding of this very sensitive issue.</li>\n<li>The one-to-one setting in a semi-structured interview is likely to establish a good rapport between the interviewer and the respondent. This could be extremely important in a research study on a sensitive issue.</li>\n</ul>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">a.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>Even 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.</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">b.</div>\n</div><div class=\"question\" style=\"padding-left: 20px;\">\n<p>It 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Some 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.</p>\n<div class=\"question_part_label\">c.</div>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.3.HL.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "research-methods-(hl-p3-only)",
      "elements-of-researching-behavior-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Individually, 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”.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: Award <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong></em>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<strong>Consent</strong>: The participants signed a consent form before the start of the study. In principle, participants should be fully informed about the aim and procedures of a study before it starts. However, in this experiment deception was used because it would be impossible to conduct this experiment if the hypothesis was revealed to participants before the study. Informed consent is a requirement in all research and in line with ethical guidelines in psychological research.</li>\n<li>\n<strong>Debriefing</strong>: The participants were debriefed after completing the study. The researchers would have informed participants about the true purpose of the study and the results they expected to find, in this case about a possible relationship between social exclusion and decrease in prosocial behaviour. They should also explain the risk of possible psychological harm in the social exclusion group and offer help to participants who wanted it.</li>\n<li>\n<strong>Anonymity</strong>: Participants in a study must be sure that nobody can identify them in research reports. This is particularly important in socially sensitive studies such as this, because of the risk of self-stigmatization. The stimulus material specifically mentions that participants were not named in the research report.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><em>Explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. Award <strong>[1]</strong> per relevant point made, up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong></em>.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<strong>Protection from harm</strong>: (1) In a study like this on a quite sensitive issue that could potentially cause some <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">psychological harm</span> to participants, the researchers should inform them after the study that they could contact the researchers if they have any questions. (2)The researchers should make sure that participants in the social exclusion condition did not risk any long-term psychological harm after the unpleasant experience, for example by offering a follow-up session after the experiment to those who asked for it. A thorough debriefing session could also serve as a way to fully inform participants about the aim of the study and at the same time touch upon the ethical issues involved in the social exclusion group.</li>\n<li>\n<strong>Deception</strong>: Deception was used in this experiment. Candidates should explain and justify the use of deception in the study, for example, explaining that a research ethics application form to an ethics committee could ensure that deception is acceptable in this particular study.</li>\n<li>\n<strong>Right to withdraw</strong>: A further ethical consideration to apply could be to inform students during debriefing that they could still withdraw their data. However, participants in this study are students who receive course credit for their participation so they might not feel they can withdraw their data because they have given consent. However, students should be informed that they are not obliged to participate if they would rather not.</li>\n<li>\n<strong>Confidentiality</strong>: The researchers could ensure that participants knew that the data would be kept in secure storage and destroyed afterwards to ensure confidentiality.</li>\n<li>Any other relevant point.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>This 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.3.HL.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"specification\">\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>A 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Individually, 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”.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n</div><div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 3 markbands when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials</em>. </p>\n<p><em>Marks 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</em>.</p>\n<p><em>The 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</em>.</p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a review of the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material.</p>\n<p>Discussion related to the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study in the stimulus material could include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Generalization means drawing inferences from findings in this experiment to something outside the study (external validity). The study in the stimulus is quantitative and therefore a model of generalization could be statistical generalization (also accept: <em>nomothetic generalization</em>). Although the participants in this study are randomly allocated to the two conditions, the sample is not randomized (as it was a convenience sample). Therefore, generalization would be problematic.</li>\n<li>In this study, the target population is psychology students who as part of their education are expected to sign up for a certain number of research studies. The study used convenience sampling, which is a non-probability sample, but it is also an easy and quick way to select a sample. However, this sampling method has received a lot of criticism, as psychology students at universities cannot be expected to represent a wider population. Therefore, it can be argued that it might at best be possible to generalize these results to psychology students at universities. Some would argue that a convenience sample only represents itself.</li>\n<li>The sampling method (based on convenience) is not considered statistically representative of a target population as it suffers from self-selection bias. One way to ensure generalization in a study is to choose a random sample (probability sampling).</li>\n<li>The fact that students received credit for participation could result in selection bias. When there is requirement to participate, students may be more likely to sign up for one study and not another on the basis of a convenient appointment time, rather than because they are making an informed choice about the kind of study they want to participate in.</li>\n<li>The sample was relatively small with only 26 participants. However, the researchers had ensured that the sample included both males and females as well as different ethnic groups. If the researchers added more participants to the sample it would enhance the possibility of generalization, as well as adding to statistical power. The more participants, the greater the chance that differences between participants will be levelled out and therefore generalization is more likely to be possible.</li>\n<li>If replications of this study arrived at the same conclusion, the potential for generalization is enhanced. If the same theory of cause-effect relationship between social exclusion and decrease in prosocial behaviour found support in additional studies it would be more likely to confirm the validity of the original findings.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 3 was the question that appeared most difficult for candidates.</p>\n<p>Most 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.</p>\n<p>Stronger 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.</p>\n<p>Weaker 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.3.HL.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-core-approaches-to-researching-behavior"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "drawing-conclusions-(hl-p3-only)"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss normality versus abnormality.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the role of clinical biases in diagnosis.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Jahoda’s (1958) work on ideal mental health</li>\n<li>Rogers’ (1959, 1961) descriptions of the fully functioning person</li>\n<li>Szasz’s (1974) and Scheff’s (1966) discussions about problems of psychiatric labelling and the medicalization of problems of living</li>\n<li>Rosenhan and Seligman’s (1989) seven features of abnormality</li>\n<li>Caetano’s (1974) study into the effects of labelling on student and psychiatrist diagnoses of video-taped actors.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion points may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>assumptions and biases in defining the concepts of normal and abnormal</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty in diagnostic manuals</li>\n<li>methodological considerations in research</li>\n<li>the influence of social and cultural norms on the perception of normality/abnormality</li>\n<li>historical changes in our understanding of what constitutes normal and abnormal behaviour</li>\n<li>ethical implications of definitions of normality and abnormality</li>\n<li>ethical considerations related to labelling and stigmatization.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Responses 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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\".</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.1",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>To what extent do sociocultural factors influence the etiology of abnormal psychology?</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “to what extent” requires candidates to consider the contribution of sociocultural factors to the etiology of psychological disorders.</p>\n<p>Examples of sociocultural factors include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>poverty and social stress</li>\n<li>social norms</li>\n<li>influences of international media</li>\n<li>processes of enculturation and acculturation.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Sociocultural factors” is a generic term so only one can be discussed (candidates do not have to address two different sociocultural factors).</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Becker <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) study investigating the influence of television on the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms, using questionnaire data and semi-structured interviews</li>\n<li>Brown and Harris’s (1986) study investigating the relationship between life events and depression in socially-disadvantaged females</li>\n<li>Noh and Kaspar’s (2002) study on the moderating effects of coping, acculturation and ethnic support relating to perceived discrimination and depression among Korean immigrants in Canada</li>\n<li>Chiao and Blizinsky’s (2010) study suggesting that cultural norms protect biologically vulnerable groups.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It is appropriate and useful for candidates to address biological and cognitive factors in order to respond to the command term “to what extent”.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n<p>However, some candidates failed to address the question fully since they attempted to discuss biological factors as their focus.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.2",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "etiology-of-abnormal-psychology"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the use of <strong>one or more</strong> psychological treatments for <strong>one</strong> psychological disorder.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The disorder chosen is likely to come from those presented in the guide:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>anxiety disorders</li>\n<li>depressive disorders</li>\n<li>obsessive compulsive disorders</li>\n<li>trauma and stress-related disorders</li>\n<li>eating disorders.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Psychological treatments chosen may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Interpersonal Therapy (IPT)</li>\n<li>Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)</li>\n<li>Exposure and Systematic desensitization</li>\n<li>Virtual Reality Therapy (VRT)</li>\n<li>Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT)</li>\n<li>Group CBT.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Descriptions of biological treatments can only be credited if they form part of the critical discussion of psychological ones.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mason and Hargreaves’ (2011) qualitative investigation into the effectiveness of MBCT</li>\n<li>Butler <em>et al</em>.’s (2006) review of meta-analysis related to CBT efficacy</li>\n<li>Hodges and Oei’s (2007) discussion of the applicability of CBT to Chinese culture</li>\n<li>McLay <em>et al</em>.’s (2011) assessment of the effectiveness of VRT for post-traumatic stress disorder.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion in relation to the use of the chosen treatment may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>comparison with alternative treatments</li>\n<li>link to etiological considerations</li>\n<li>advantages and disadvantages of its use</li>\n<li>effectiveness based on empirical research</li>\n<li>ethical considerations in its use.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n<p>Only a few candidates made the mistake of confusing biological treatments with psychological ones.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.3",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "treatment-of-disorders"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status on human development.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status on human development.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Bhoomika <em>et al</em>.’s (2008) research on the effect of malnutrition on cognitive performance in Indian children</li>\n<li>Wertheimer’s (2003) research on the correlation between academic achievement and living in poor families</li>\n<li>Schoon’s (2002) longitudinal study investigating the long-term effect of poverty on academic achievement and attainment in adult life</li>\n<li>Evans &amp; Kim’s (2007) study on the effects of long-term exposure to poverty in childhood on both physical and mental health</li>\n<li>Montgomery <em>et al</em>.’s (1996) research on the link between poverty and health of children and adolescents</li>\n<li>Hoyert <em>et al</em>.’s (1999) research on the correlation between death rates in middle age and poverty</li>\n<li>Russell <em>et al</em>.’s (2008) research on the influence of poverty on parenting.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in research related to the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>cultural considerations</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases in research related to the influence of poverty and/or socio-economic status.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Candidates 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.4",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "influences-on-cognitive-and-social-development"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Evaluate <strong>one or more</strong> theories and/or studies relevant to the development of gender identity and/or social roles.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant theories related to gender identity and social roles may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>gender schema theory that stresses the key role of cognitive processes in the development of gender roles<br/>•social learning theory that highlights the importance of the social environment and emphasizes the potency of observational and modelling processes<br/>•theory of psychosexual differentiation that is based on the assumption that gender roles are related to genetic sex determined by chromosomes<br/>•evolutionary theory that attempts to locate gender role differences in a historical evolutionary context<br/>•theory of social roles related to socialization and division of labour within society.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies related to gender identity and social roles may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Martin and Halvorson’s (1983) study showing the role of gender schemas on gender roles</li>\n<li>Witt (1997); Fagot’s (1978) studies showing the influence of parents on gender roles</li>\n<li>Neculaesei (2015); Mead’s (1935) studies showing that gender roles depend upon the society</li>\n<li>Money and Ehrhardt’s (1972) study claiming that children are gender neutral at birth</li>\n<li>Eagly and Wood’s (2016) study on social role theory of sex differences.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical evaluation may include but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations</li>\n<li>cultural and gender considerations</li>\n<li>the accuracy and clarity of the concepts</li>\n<li>contrary findings or explanations</li>\n<li>the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research</li>\n<li>the applications of the empirical findings</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of <strong>[3]</strong> for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.</p>\n<p>For 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).</p>\n<p>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 use of research should be linked to the topic<br/>of the specific question.</p>\n<p>Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.</p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.5",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-an-identity"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> research methods used to investigate how humans develop as learners.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Candidates 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research methods could include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>interviews (<em>eg</em>, semi-structured)</li>\n<li>naturalistic observations</li>\n<li>correlational studies (<em>eg</em> surveys)</li>\n<li>case study</li>\n<li>experiments (laboratory, field or natural)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Learning 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant research studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Waber (2007); Giedd (2004); Chugani <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) correlational studies on the effects of maturation of the nervous system on cognitive development<br/>•Cowell <em>et al</em>. (2006); Corky’s (1997) correlational studies on brain damage and memory deficits<br/>•Deary <em>et al</em>. (2006); Bouchard <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) correlational studies on genetic inheritance in intelligence<br/>•Wolf <em>et al</em>.’s (2001) experimental study on cortisol and memory deficits in the elderly.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>A critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>why the method(s) was/were selected and the appropriateness of the method(s)including strengths and weaknesses of the method(s)</li>\n<li>possible theoretical assumptions and/or biases in relation to the chosen method</li>\n<li>the issues of validity and reliability</li>\n<li>the generalizability of findings</li>\n<li>the use of alternative/additional methods (triangulation)</li>\n<li>ethical considerations.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>For 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).</p>\n<p>Marks 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. </p>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.6",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-developmental-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "developing-as-a-learner"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss <strong>one or more</strong> risk and/or protective factors influencing <strong>one or more</strong> health issues.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>The 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.</p>\n<p>Risk factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>biological factors such as genetics, body type, high blood pressure</li>\n<li>environmental factors such as lack of a readily available supply of healthy foods, access to clean water, the effects of pollution/noise</li>\n<li>personal lifestyle choices such as tobacco, drug or alcohol consumption, hygiene, unsafe sexual practices.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Protective factors may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>access to healthy foods and consequentially a healthy diet</li>\n<li>a clean, abundant water supply</li>\n<li>regular exercise habits</li>\n<li>social support.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant studies may include but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Kiecolt-Glaser <em>et al</em>.’s (1984) quasi experiment investigating medical students’ reactions to exam stress</li>\n<li>Evans and Kim’s (2007) correlational study of the effects of long-term exposure to poverty and stress in childhood</li>\n<li>Johnson <em>et al</em>.’s (2009) correlational study on the effects of added sugars in American diet</li>\n<li>Ursin and Erison’s (2004) study on the effect of belief in self to manage stress</li>\n<li>Haworth <em>et al</em>.’s (2008) correlational study relating Body Mass Index and environmental factors in obesity.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations related to the study of risk and protective factors</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied implications of the findings. </li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.7",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "health-problems"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Using<strong> one or more</strong> health problems as examples, discuss prevalence rates.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to make a considered review of prevalence rates, using one or more health problems as examples.</p>\n<p>Prevalence 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.</p>\n<p>Health 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.</p>\n<p>Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Kamen and Seligman’s (1987) longitudinal study of attributional style and health level</li>\n<li>Thoits’ (1995) review of studies of gender prevalence in giving and receiving social support</li>\n<li>Charlton’s (1984) survey of attitudes toward smoking and enjoyment based on cognitive and sociocultural factors</li>\n<li>Stunkard <em>et al</em>.’s (1990) correlational study comparing genetic and environmental factors in obesity</li>\n<li>Kolodny <em>et al</em>.’s (2015) review of the opioid and heroin crisis in the US</li>\n<li>Jordan <em>et al</em>.’s (2017) review and meta-analysis of prevalence of prescription opioid misuse among under-30s in the US.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>methodological and ethical considerations in relation to investigating prevalence rates in health problems</li>\n<li>how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied</li>\n<li>implications of the findings</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty.</li>\n<li>Age and gender differences</li>\n<li>Lifestyle (diet, exercise, sleep, relationships)</li>\n<li>Social and cultural norms</li>\n<li>Socioeconomic status</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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.</p>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.8",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-abnormal-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "factors-influencing-diagnosis"
    ]
  },
  {
    "Question": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Discuss the effectiveness of <strong>one or more</strong> health promotion programmes.</p>\n</div>",
    "Markscheme": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p><em>Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks</em>. <em>These can be found under the “Your tests” tab &gt; supplemental materials.</em></p>\n<p>The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of one or more health promotion programmes.</p>\n<p>Health 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.</p>\n<p>Examples of health promotion programmes may include, but are not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>food labelling programmes</li>\n<li>stress reduction programmes such as MBSR or yoga</li>\n<li>health education campaigns such as the TRUTH anti-tobacco campaign</li>\n<li>public health campaigns designed to change beliefs and attitudes.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Relevant research may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Peckmann and Reibling’s (2006) study of the effectiveness of fear campaigns</li>\n<li>Yee <em>et al</em>.’s (2006) study of effectiveness of strategies to change behaviours related to obesity</li>\n<li>Sly <em>et al</em>.’s (2002) survey on community based anti-smoking promotion among teens</li>\n<li>Holm’s (2002) survey on the efficiency of health campaigns</li>\n<li>Schum and Gould’s (2007) study of why health campaigns are effective.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Critical discussion may include, but is not limited to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Supporting and contradictory evidence of the programme’s success</li>\n<li>Social engineering <em>eg</em> taxes and/or subsidies upon products such as sugar, tobacco, or alcohol</li>\n<li>methodological concerns in measuring outcomes of the programme (<em>e.g.</em> small samples, no control group, no random allocation of participants and possibility of researcher bias).</li>\n<li>cultural and ethical considerations in programme implementation</li>\n<li>assumptions and biases</li>\n<li>areas of uncertainty.</li>\n<li>short-term versus long-term efficacy</li>\n<li>age and gender considerations</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "Examiners report": "<div class=\"question\">\n<p>Question 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:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>promoting healthy eating and exercise in schools (2004)</li>\n<li>programmes based on social learning theory (for example, the Sabido method to encourage safe sex practices)</li>\n<li>Project SMART (US), promoting positive health decisions in middle school aged children.</li>\n<li>Challenge! (Australia) school-based pedometer program promoting healthy lifestyles among Aboriginal people</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
    "question_id": "20N.2.BP.TZ0.9",
    "topics": [
      "2019-options-health-psychology"
    ],
    "subtopics": [
      "promoting-health"
    ]
  }
]