IB · PSYCH HL

Psychology HL

Developmental psychology (option) — HL Paper 2

Name: ____________________Date: October 14, 2026

1.
A researcher observes that infants under 8 months old do not search for a toy that has been hidden under a blanket, while infants over 8 months old do search for it. (a) Name the cognitive milestone this describes. (b) Suggest one limitation of using observation of infant behaviour, rather than verbal report, to draw conclusions about infant cognition.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names object permanence.
- States that infant cognition must be inferred indirectly from behaviour rather than reported directly.
- Explains a specific risk this creates, such as an infant understanding object permanence but lacking the motor coordination to act on it, understating true understanding.
- Notes this makes it hard to distinguish a genuine cognitive limitation from a performance limitation.
Examiner tip: When infant behaviour is the only available measure, always consider whether a 'failure' reflects a true cognitive gap or simply a motor/attentional limitation.
2.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A researcher observes that infants under 8 months old do not search for a toy that has been hidden under a blanket, while infants over 8 months old do search for it. (a) Name the cognitive milestone this describes. (b) Suggest one limitation of using observation of infant behaviour, rather than verbal report, to draw conclusions about infant cognition.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names object permanence.” Evaluate the response against the complete 4-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names object permanence.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that infant cognition must be inferred indirectly from behaviour rather than reported directly.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains a specific risk this creates, such as an infant understanding object permanence but lacking the motor coordination to act on it, understating true understanding.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Notes this makes it hard to distinguish a genuine cognitive limitation from a performance limitation.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
3.
A study compares academic performance of adolescents raised with an authoritative parenting style versus an authoritarian parenting style, finding higher average performance and reported wellbeing in the authoritative group. (a) State one key difference between the two parenting styles. (b) Suggest one confounding variable that could partly explain the performance difference besides parenting style itself. (c) Explain why this study design cannot establish that parenting style alone causes the difference in performance.
[5 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States a valid key difference, such as authoritative parenting combining high demandingness with high responsiveness/warmth, while authoritarian parenting combines high demandingness with low responsiveness.
- Suggests a valid confounding variable, such as family socioeconomic status, parental education level, or household stability.
- Explains how the suggested confound could independently affect both parenting style and academic performance.
- States that the study is correlational, since parenting style was not manipulated or randomly assigned.
- Explains that without random assignment to parenting style, other pre-existing family differences could account for the association, so causation cannot be established.
Examiner tip: A well-chosen confound should plausibly influence both variables in the study, not just one of them.
4.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A study compares academic performance of adolescents raised with an authoritative parenting style versus an authoritarian parenting style, finding higher average performance and reported wellbeing in the authoritative group. (a) State one key difference between the two parenting styles. (b) Suggest one confounding variable that could partly explain the performance difference besides parenting style itself. (c) Explain why this study design cannot establish that parenting style alone causes the difference in performance.” Their response addresses only this point: “States a valid key difference, such as authoritative parenting combining high demandingness with high responsiveness/warmth, while authoritarian parenting combines high demandingness with low responsiveness.” Evaluate the response against the complete 5-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[5 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: States a valid key difference, such as authoritative parenting combining high demandingness with high responsiveness/warmth, while authoritarian parenting combines high demandingness with low responsiveness.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid confounding variable, such as family socioeconomic status, parental education level, or household stability.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains how the suggested confound could independently affect both parenting style and academic performance.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that the study is correlational, since parenting style was not manipulated or randomly assigned.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that without random assignment to parenting style, other pre-existing family differences could account for the association, so causation cannot be established.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
5.
A researcher shows a 5-year-old child two identical short, wide glasses filled with equal amounts of water, then pours one glass into a taller, narrower glass while the child watches. The child confidently states that the taller glass now has 'more water', even though nothing was added or removed. (a) Name the cognitive limitation Piaget used this task to demonstrate. (b) Identify the Piagetian stage of cognitive development in which children typically show this limitation.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names a lack of conservation: the inability to understand that a quantity remains the same despite a change in its appearance/shape.
- Identifies the preoperational stage (approximately ages 2–7).
Examiner tip: Failure on a conservation task is one of the clearest classic markers of the preoperational stage, alongside egocentrism.
6.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A researcher shows a 5-year-old child two identical short, wide glasses filled with equal amounts of water, then pours one glass into a taller, narrower glass while the child watches. The child confidently states that the taller glass now has 'more water', even though nothing was added or removed. (a) Name the cognitive limitation Piaget used this task to demonstrate. (b) Identify the Piagetian stage of cognitive development in which children typically show this limitation.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names a lack of conservation: the inability to understand that a quantity remains the same despite a change in its appearance/shape.” Evaluate the response against the complete 2-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names a lack of conservation: the inability to understand that a quantity remains the same despite a change in its appearance/shape.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Identifies the preoperational stage (approximately ages 2–7).
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
7.
In a modified version of Piaget's conservation task, McGarrigle and Donaldson had a 'naughty teddy bear' puppet accidentally knock over and rearrange the objects being compared, rather than the researcher doing it deliberately and visibly. Under this condition, significantly more young children answered correctly that the quantity had not changed. (a) Explain what this finding suggests about a possible flaw in Piaget's original method. (b) Explain why this matters for interpreting how early children genuinely acquire conservation ability.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that in Piaget's original task, the researcher's deliberate, visible action of transforming the material may have led children to assume the quantity must have changed (since an adult had purposefully done something to it), rather than the children genuinely lacking the logical ability to conserve.
- Explains that the naughty teddy version removed this social/pragmatic cue, showing that once the transformation appeared accidental, many young children could demonstrate conservation earlier than Piaget's original stage timeline suggested.
- Concludes that Piaget's original method may have underestimated young children's true cognitive ability by unintentionally confounding logical reasoning with social interpretation of the researcher's actions.
Examiner tip: This is a classic methodological critique in developmental psychology: a child's apparent 'failure' can sometimes reflect the demands of the testing procedure itself, rather than a true absence of the underlying ability.
8.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “In a modified version of Piaget's conservation task, McGarrigle and Donaldson had a 'naughty teddy bear' puppet accidentally knock over and rearrange the objects being compared, rather than the researcher doing it deliberately and visibly. Under this condition, significantly more young children answered correctly that the quantity had not changed. (a) Explain what this finding suggests about a possible flaw in Piaget's original method. (b) Explain why this matters for interpreting how early children genuinely acquire conservation ability.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that in Piaget's original task, the researcher's deliberate, visible action of transforming the material may have led children to assume the quantity must have changed (since an adult had purposefully done something to it), rather than the children genuinely lacking the logical ability to conserve.” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Explains that in Piaget's original task, the researcher's deliberate, visible action of transforming the material may have led children to assume the quantity must have changed (since an adult had purposefully done something to it), rather than the children genuinely lacking the logical ability to conserve.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that the naughty teddy version removed this social/pragmatic cue, showing that once the transformation appeared accidental, many young children could demonstrate conservation earlier than Piaget's original stage timeline suggested.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Concludes that Piaget's original method may have underestimated young children's true cognitive ability by unintentionally confounding logical reasoning with social interpretation of the researcher's actions.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
9.
In the classic 'Sally-Anne' task, a child watches a story in which Sally hides a marble in a basket and leaves the room; while she is away, Anne moves the marble to a box. The child is then asked where Sally will look for the marble when she returns. Children under about 4 years old typically answer incorrectly that Sally will look in the box, while older children correctly say she will look in the basket. (a) Name the cognitive ability this task tests. (b) Explain why older children's correct answer (the basket) demonstrates this ability, while younger children's incorrect answer (the box) demonstrates its absence.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names theory of mind (specifically, understanding false belief).
- Explains that answering 'basket' requires the child to understand that Sally holds a false belief, different from the child's own (correct) knowledge of the marble's true location, and to predict Sally's behaviour based on her belief rather than on objective reality.
- Explains that answering 'box' reflects an inability to separate one's own knowledge from another person's (different, false) mental state, treating everyone as if they share the child's own current knowledge.
Examiner tip: Passing a false-belief task specifically requires representing someone else's incorrect mental state — this is a higher-order skill than simply understanding that other people can see or know different things in general.
10.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “In the classic 'Sally-Anne' task, a child watches a story in which Sally hides a marble in a basket and leaves the room; while she is away, Anne moves the marble to a box. The child is then asked where Sally will look for the marble when she returns. Children under about 4 years old typically answer incorrectly that Sally will look in the box, while older children correctly say she will look in the basket. (a) Name the cognitive ability this task tests. (b) Explain why older children's correct answer (the basket) demonstrates this ability, while younger children's incorrect answer (the box) demonstrates its absence.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names theory of mind (specifically, understanding false belief).” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names theory of mind (specifically, understanding false belief).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that answering 'basket' requires the child to understand that Sally holds a false belief, different from the child's own (correct) knowledge of the marble's true location, and to predict Sally's behaviour based on her belief rather than on objective reality.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that answering 'box' reflects an inability to separate one's own knowledge from another person's (different, false) mental state, treating everyone as if they share the child's own current knowledge.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
11.
In Ainsworth's Strange Situation procedure, an infant is briefly separated from and then reunited with their caregiver in an unfamiliar room. Some infants are visibly distressed at separation and are easily comforted and quick to return to play upon reunion; others seem to actively avoid or ignore the caregiver upon reunion; still others appear distressed at separation but resist comfort, remaining clingy yet angry upon reunion. (a) Name the three attachment classifications being described, in the order given. (b) Suggest one caregiver behaviour pattern generally associated with producing the first (well-adjusted) attachment type.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names secure attachment for the first pattern (distress at separation, easily comforted, quick return to play).
- Names insecure-avoidant attachment for the second pattern (avoiding/ignoring the caregiver upon reunion).
- Names insecure-resistant (ambivalent) attachment for the third pattern (distress at separation, resisting comfort, clingy yet angry upon reunion).
- Suggests that secure attachment is generally associated with a consistently sensitive and responsive caregiver, who reliably notices and appropriately responds to the infant's needs and signals.
Examiner tip: The three original Ainsworth classifications are distinguished by behaviour specifically at reunion (not separation alone) — always describe what the infant does when the caregiver comes back.
12.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “In Ainsworth's Strange Situation procedure, an infant is briefly separated from and then reunited with their caregiver in an unfamiliar room. Some infants are visibly distressed at separation and are easily comforted and quick to return to play upon reunion; others seem to actively avoid or ignore the caregiver upon reunion; still others appear distressed at separation but resist comfort, remaining clingy yet angry upon reunion. (a) Name the three attachment classifications being described, in the order given. (b) Suggest one caregiver behaviour pattern generally associated with producing the first (well-adjusted) attachment type.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names secure attachment for the first pattern (distress at separation, easily comforted, quick return to play).” Evaluate the response against the complete 4-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names secure attachment for the first pattern (distress at separation, easily comforted, quick return to play).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names insecure-avoidant attachment for the second pattern (avoiding/ignoring the caregiver upon reunion).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names insecure-resistant (ambivalent) attachment for the third pattern (distress at separation, resisting comfort, clingy yet angry upon reunion).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests that secure attachment is generally associated with a consistently sensitive and responsive caregiver, who reliably notices and appropriately responds to the infant's needs and signals.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
13.
Bowlby proposed that infants must form one central attachment bond, primarily with their mother, within a critical early period, and that significant, prolonged disruption to this bond during this period causes lasting, irreversible harm to the child's emotional development. (a) Name this hypothesis. (b) Suggest one valid criticism of this hypothesis, given later research on attachment.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis.
- Suggests a valid criticism, such as later research showing infants can and do form multiple meaningful attachments (e.g., with fathers, grandparents, or other consistent caregivers), not just one exclusive bond with the mother.
- Alternatively, notes that later research (e.g., on children recovering after severe early deprivation) has shown outcomes are often more variable and reversible with high-quality later care than Bowlby's original 'irreversible harm' claim suggested.
Examiner tip: Bowlby's theory is historically important but is now considered to have overstated both the exclusivity of the mother-infant bond (monotropy) and the irreversibility of early disruption.
14.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Bowlby proposed that infants must form one central attachment bond, primarily with their mother, within a critical early period, and that significant, prolonged disruption to this bond during this period causes lasting, irreversible harm to the child's emotional development. (a) Name this hypothesis. (b) Suggest one valid criticism of this hypothesis, given later research on attachment.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis.” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid criticism, such as later research showing infants can and do form multiple meaningful attachments (e.g., with fathers, grandparents, or other consistent caregivers), not just one exclusive bond with the mother.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Alternatively, notes that later research (e.g., on children recovering after severe early deprivation) has shown outcomes are often more variable and reversible with high-quality later care than Bowlby's original 'irreversible harm' claim suggested.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
15.
According to Vygotsky, a child can solve some problems independently, but can solve a wider range of more advanced problems with the guided support of a more skilled adult or peer, who gradually withdraws support as the child becomes more capable. (a) Name the concept describing the specific range of tasks a child can complete only with such guided support. (b) Name the specific teaching technique described, in which support is gradually reduced as competence increases.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
- Names scaffolding.
Examiner tip: Vygotsky's theory emphasises social and cultural support for learning, contrasting with Piaget's greater emphasis on the child as a largely independent, solo discoverer of knowledge.
16.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to Vygotsky, a child can solve some problems independently, but can solve a wider range of more advanced problems with the guided support of a more skilled adult or peer, who gradually withdraws support as the child becomes more capable. (a) Name the concept describing the specific range of tasks a child can complete only with such guided support. (b) Name the specific teaching technique described, in which support is gradually reduced as competence increases.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names the zone of proximal development (ZPD).” Evaluate the response against the complete 2-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Names the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names scaffolding.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
17.
According to Erikson's stage theory, adolescence involves a central psychosocial crisis of 'identity versus role confusion', in which a teenager must explore different possible identities (beliefs, values, goals) in order to develop a stable, coherent sense of self. (a) State what Erikson proposed happens if this crisis is not successfully resolved during adolescence. (b) Suggest one real-world activity typical of adolescence that reflects this identity exploration process.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States that Erikson proposed unsuccessful resolution leads to role confusion: an unclear, unstable sense of identity that can persist into adulthood and disrupt later life choices and relationships.
- Suggests a valid real-world activity, such as trying out different friend groups, hobbies, styles, political or religious beliefs, or career interests during the teenage years.
- Briefly links the suggested activity to identity exploration, e.g., trying different social groups as a way of testing which values and roles feel authentic to the adolescent.
Examiner tip: Erikson's theory frames adolescent identity exploration as a healthy, necessary process, not a problem to be avoided — the crisis is resolved through active exploration, not by skipping it.
18.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to Erikson's stage theory, adolescence involves a central psychosocial crisis of 'identity versus role confusion', in which a teenager must explore different possible identities (beliefs, values, goals) in order to develop a stable, coherent sense of self. (a) State what Erikson proposed happens if this crisis is not successfully resolved during adolescence. (b) Suggest one real-world activity typical of adolescence that reflects this identity exploration process.” Their response addresses only this point: “States that Erikson proposed unsuccessful resolution leads to role confusion: an unclear, unstable sense of identity that can persist into adulthood and disrupt later life choices and relationships.” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: States that Erikson proposed unsuccessful resolution leads to role confusion: an unclear, unstable sense of identity that can persist into adulthood and disrupt later life choices and relationships.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid real-world activity, such as trying out different friend groups, hobbies, styles, political or religious beliefs, or career interests during the teenage years.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Briefly links the suggested activity to identity exploration, e.g., trying different social groups as a way of testing which values and roles feel authentic to the adolescent.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
19.
Marcia extended Erikson's theory by proposing four identity statuses based on two dimensions: whether a person has actively explored identity options, and whether they have made a firm commitment. A teenager who has never seriously questioned the career path their parents chose for them, and has firmly committed to it without exploring alternatives, would be classified in which identity status? (a) Identify this specific identity status. (b) Identify the identity status that would instead describe a young adult who has explored several career options and has now made a confident, settled commitment to one.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration).
- Identifies identity achievement (exploration followed by firm commitment).
Examiner tip: Marcia's four statuses form a 2×2 grid of exploration (yes/no) by commitment (yes/no): diffusion (neither), foreclosure (commitment only), moratorium (exploration only), achievement (both).
20.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Marcia extended Erikson's theory by proposing four identity statuses based on two dimensions: whether a person has actively explored identity options, and whether they have made a firm commitment. A teenager who has never seriously questioned the career path their parents chose for them, and has firmly committed to it without exploring alternatives, would be classified in which identity status? (a) Identify this specific identity status. (b) Identify the identity status that would instead describe a young adult who has explored several career options and has now made a confident, settled commitment to one.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration).” Evaluate the response against the complete 2-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Identifies identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Identifies identity achievement (exploration followed by firm commitment).
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
21.
In Kohlberg's classic moral dilemma, a man named Heinz must decide whether to steal an unaffordable, overpriced drug to save his dying wife's life. One respondent answers that Heinz should not steal the drug because he could be caught and sent to jail. A different respondent answers that Heinz should steal the drug because preserving human life is a universal ethical principle that outweighs the law against theft in this case. (a) Identify the level of moral reasoning shown by the first respondent. (b) Identify the level of moral reasoning shown by the second respondent.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies preconventional reasoning for the first respondent, who focuses on avoiding personal punishment.
- Identifies postconventional reasoning for the second respondent, who reasons from a self-chosen, universal ethical principle that can override existing law.
Examiner tip: Kohlberg's levels are defined by the type of reasoning given, not the final decision (steal or not steal) — two people can reach opposite decisions while reasoning at the same level, or the same decision while reasoning at different levels.
22.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “In Kohlberg's classic moral dilemma, a man named Heinz must decide whether to steal an unaffordable, overpriced drug to save his dying wife's life. One respondent answers that Heinz should not steal the drug because he could be caught and sent to jail. A different respondent answers that Heinz should steal the drug because preserving human life is a universal ethical principle that outweighs the law against theft in this case. (a) Identify the level of moral reasoning shown by the first respondent. (b) Identify the level of moral reasoning shown by the second respondent.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies preconventional reasoning for the first respondent, who focuses on avoiding personal punishment.” Evaluate the response against the complete 2-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Identifies preconventional reasoning for the first respondent, who focuses on avoiding personal punishment.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Identifies postconventional reasoning for the second respondent, who reasons from a self-chosen, universal ethical principle that can override existing law.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
23.
Research on children who experience chronic early adversity, such as ongoing neglect or severe family instability, often finds long-term dysregulation of the body's cortisol-based stress response system. (a) Explain how repeated activation of the stress response during early childhood could plausibly lead to this kind of lasting biological change. (b) Suggest one reason this finding matters for designing early childhood intervention or support programmes.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that repeatedly activating the HPA axis/stress response during a sensitive period of brain development can alter how that system calibrates itself, leading to either an overactive or blunted stress response that persists well beyond the original adverse experiences.
- Suggests that this shows early adversity can have a genuine, measurable biological impact on development, not just a psychological/behavioural one, strengthening the case for intervening as early as possible.
- Explains that this supports designing intervention programmes that reduce chronic early stress exposure and support caregiver-child relationships, since doing so may help prevent or partly reverse this biological dysregulation before it becomes deeply established.
Examiner tip: This research connects the biological approach directly to developmental psychology: early environmental experience can leave a measurable, lasting mark on a core physiological system, not just on behaviour or memory.
24.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Research on children who experience chronic early adversity, such as ongoing neglect or severe family instability, often finds long-term dysregulation of the body's cortisol-based stress response system. (a) Explain how repeated activation of the stress response during early childhood could plausibly lead to this kind of lasting biological change. (b) Suggest one reason this finding matters for designing early childhood intervention or support programmes.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that repeatedly activating the HPA axis/stress response during a sensitive period of brain development can alter how that system calibrates itself, leading to either an overactive or blunted stress response that persists well beyond the original adverse experiences.” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Explains that repeatedly activating the HPA axis/stress response during a sensitive period of brain development can alter how that system calibrates itself, leading to either an overactive or blunted stress response that persists well beyond the original adverse experiences.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests that this shows early adversity can have a genuine, measurable biological impact on development, not just a psychological/behavioural one, strengthening the case for intervening as early as possible.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that this supports designing intervention programmes that reduce chronic early stress exposure and support caregiver-child relationships, since doing so may help prevent or partly reverse this biological dysregulation before it becomes deeply established.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
25.
During childhood, parents are typically the dominant influence on a child's beliefs and behaviour, whereas during adolescence, peers often become an increasingly powerful influence, sometimes rivalling or exceeding parental influence on certain decisions. (a) Suggest one psychological reason peer influence increases specifically during adolescence. (b) Suggest one type of decision where peer influence would be expected to be especially strong during adolescence.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Suggests a valid reason, such as adolescence being the period of identity exploration (per Erikson), during which peer groups become an important source of feedback, belonging, and social comparison as the adolescent starts to separate their identity from their parents'.
- Suggests a plausible decision type strongly affected by peers, such as clothing/style choices, social activities and hobbies, or risk-taking behaviour, as opposed to decisions like long-term financial or major moral values, which often remain more parent-influenced.
Examiner tip: Peer and parental influence are not simply 'either/or' — research generally finds peers dominate day-to-day social and lifestyle choices in adolescence, while parents often retain more influence over long-term values and major life decisions.
26.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “During childhood, parents are typically the dominant influence on a child's beliefs and behaviour, whereas during adolescence, peers often become an increasingly powerful influence, sometimes rivalling or exceeding parental influence on certain decisions. (a) Suggest one psychological reason peer influence increases specifically during adolescence. (b) Suggest one type of decision where peer influence would be expected to be especially strong during adolescence.” Their response addresses only this point: “Suggests a valid reason, such as adolescence being the period of identity exploration (per Erikson), during which peer groups become an important source of feedback, belonging, and social comparison as the adolescent starts to separate their identity from their parents'.” Evaluate the response against the complete 2-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Suggests a valid reason, such as adolescence being the period of identity exploration (per Erikson), during which peer groups become an important source of feedback, belonging, and social comparison as the adolescent starts to separate their identity from their parents'.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a plausible decision type strongly affected by peers, such as clothing/style choices, social activities and hobbies, or risk-taking behaviour, as opposed to decisions like long-term financial or major moral values, which often remain more parent-influenced.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
27.
A researcher wants to study how memory ability changes across the lifespan. Study A tests one group of 20-year-olds, one group of 50-year-olds, and one group of 80-year-olds all at the same point in time. Study B instead tests the same group of people at ages 20, 50, and 80, following them for 60 years. (a) Identify Study A's research design and Study B's research design. (b) Explain one specific advantage Study B has over Study A for drawing conclusions about genuine age-related change, referring to the concept of a cohort effect.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies Study A as a cross-sectional design.
- Identifies Study B as a longitudinal design.
- Explains a cohort effect: differences found between age groups in Study A could reflect genuine ageing, or could instead reflect the different life experiences and education each generation (cohort) had, unrelated to age itself.
- Explains that because Study B follows the same individuals over time, it avoids comparing different generations altogether, providing a cleaner (though slower and more expensive) measure of genuine within-person age-related change.
Examiner tip: Cohort effects are the single biggest threat to cross-sectional developmental research — always ask whether an age-group difference could instead be a generation difference.
28.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A researcher wants to study how memory ability changes across the lifespan. Study A tests one group of 20-year-olds, one group of 50-year-olds, and one group of 80-year-olds all at the same point in time. Study B instead tests the same group of people at ages 20, 50, and 80, following them for 60 years. (a) Identify Study A's research design and Study B's research design. (b) Explain one specific advantage Study B has over Study A for drawing conclusions about genuine age-related change, referring to the concept of a cohort effect.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies Study A as a cross-sectional design.” Evaluate the response against the complete 4-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: Identifies Study A as a cross-sectional design.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Identifies Study B as a longitudinal design.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains a cohort effect: differences found between age groups in Study A could reflect genuine ageing, or could instead reflect the different life experiences and education each generation (cohort) had, unrelated to age itself.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that because Study B follows the same individuals over time, it avoids comparing different generations altogether, providing a cleaner (though slower and more expensive) measure of genuine within-person age-related change.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.
29.
Researchers debate whether early development involves a strict 'critical period', after which a particular development (such as attachment or first-language acquisition) becomes essentially impossible, or a more flexible 'sensitive period', during which development is simply easier and more likely to occur optimally, but can still happen, with more difficulty, later on. (a) Distinguish between these two concepts. (b) Suggest one type of evidence that would support the 'sensitive period' view over the strict 'critical period' view.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States that a critical period implies development is only possible within a fixed window, and becomes permanently impossible once that window closes.
- States that a sensitive period implies development is optimal and easiest within a certain window, but remains possible, if more difficult, outside it.
- Suggests valid supporting evidence, such as documented cases of children who formed a first significant attachment bond, or made meaningful (if incomplete) language progress, after the originally proposed 'critical' window had already closed.
Examiner tip: Most modern developmental psychologists favour 'sensitive period' over strict 'critical period' language, precisely because documented exceptions show later development, though harder, is not strictly impossible.
30.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Researchers debate whether early development involves a strict 'critical period', after which a particular development (such as attachment or first-language acquisition) becomes essentially impossible, or a more flexible 'sensitive period', during which development is simply easier and more likely to occur optimally, but can still happen, with more difficulty, later on. (a) Distinguish between these two concepts. (b) Suggest one type of evidence that would support the 'sensitive period' view over the strict 'critical period' view.” Their response addresses only this point: “States that a critical period implies development is only possible within a fixed window, and becomes permanently impossible once that window closes.” Evaluate the response against the complete 3-mark task. Identify what earns credit and state every additional requirement needed for full marks.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Recognises credit for the stated point: States that a critical period implies development is only possible within a fixed window, and becomes permanently impossible once that window closes.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that a sensitive period implies development is optimal and easiest within a certain window, but remains possible, if more difficult, outside it.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests valid supporting evidence, such as documented cases of children who formed a first significant attachment bond, or made meaningful (if incomplete) language progress, after the originally proposed 'critical' window had already closed.
Examiner tip: Treat each marking point as a separate requirement. Do not award the same idea twice, and do not infer work the learner did not show.