IB · PSYCH HL

Psychology HL

Health psychology (option, HL) — HL Paper 2

Name: ____________________Date: October 2, 2026

1.
Outline Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) model of the stress response, naming its three stages.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names and outlines the alarm stage: the body's immediate fight-or-flight response to a stressor, involving a rapid surge of adrenaline.
- Names and outlines the resistance stage: the body attempts to adapt to and cope with the continued presence of the stressor, maintaining elevated cortisol to sustain coping resources.
- Names and outlines the exhaustion stage: if the stressor persists too long, the body's coping resources become depleted, increasing vulnerability to illness and physical/psychological breakdown.
Examiner tip: The GAS model's key insight is that the stress response is time-limited and resource-depleting — chronic stress is harmful specifically because the body cannot sustain the resistance stage indefinitely.
2.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Outline Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) model of the stress response, naming its three stages.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names and outlines the alarm stage: the body's immediate fight-or-flight response to a stressor, involving a rapid surge of adrenaline.” 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 and outlines the alarm stage: the body's immediate fight-or-flight response to a stressor, involving a rapid surge of adrenaline.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names and outlines the resistance stage: the body attempts to adapt to and cope with the continued presence of the stressor, maintaining elevated cortisol to sustain coping resources.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names and outlines the exhaustion stage: if the stressor persists too long, the body's coping resources become depleted, increasing vulnerability to illness and physical/psychological breakdown.
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.
Distinguish between a major life event and a daily hassle as sources of stress, and explain why daily hassles may have a greater cumulative impact on health than infrequent major life events.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Defines a major life event as a significant, discrete change requiring substantial readjustment (e.g., divorce, job loss), which is relatively infrequent.
- Defines a daily hassle as a minor, frequent irritation of everyday life (e.g., traffic, misplaced keys, minor arguments).
- Explains that although each daily hassle is individually minor, their frequent, repeated occurrence means the body's stress response is triggered constantly, potentially producing more cumulative physiological wear than a single, infrequent major event, even though the major event feels more significant in the moment.
Examiner tip: This is a genuinely counter-intuitive finding worth remembering: frequency and chronicity of stress exposure can matter more for long-term health than the single-event intensity of a major life crisis.
4.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Distinguish between a major life event and a daily hassle as sources of stress, and explain why daily hassles may have a greater cumulative impact on health than infrequent major life events.” Their response addresses only this point: “Defines a major life event as a significant, discrete change requiring substantial readjustment (e.g., divorce, job loss), which is relatively infrequent.” 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: Defines a major life event as a significant, discrete change requiring substantial readjustment (e.g., divorce, job loss), which is relatively infrequent.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Defines a daily hassle as a minor, frequent irritation of everyday life (e.g., traffic, misplaced keys, minor arguments).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that although each daily hassle is individually minor, their frequent, repeated occurrence means the body's stress response is triggered constantly, potentially producing more cumulative physiological wear than a single, infrequent major event, even though the major event feels more significant in the moment.
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.
Holmes and Rahe developed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS), which assigns a numerical value to different life events based on the amount of readjustment they require, and sums these values to predict stress-related illness risk. State one strength and one limitation of this approach to measuring stress.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States a valid strength, such as the SRRS providing a standardized, quantifiable measure of stress exposure that allows researchers to compare stress levels across individuals and studies.
- States a valid limitation, such as the scale assuming all life events are experienced similarly by everyone (ignoring individual differences in appraisal, coping resources, or whether an event is perceived as positive or negative), which can lead to inaccurate predictions for a specific individual.
Examiner tip: The SRRS's key limitation is treating stress as purely objective and event-based, ignoring the transactional model's insight that individual cognitive appraisal of an event matters as much as the event itself.
6.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Holmes and Rahe developed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS), which assigns a numerical value to different life events based on the amount of readjustment they require, and sums these values to predict stress-related illness risk. State one strength and one limitation of this approach to measuring stress.” Their response addresses only this point: “States a valid strength, such as the SRRS providing a standardized, quantifiable measure of stress exposure that allows researchers to compare stress levels across individuals and studies.” 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: States a valid strength, such as the SRRS providing a standardized, quantifiable measure of stress exposure that allows researchers to compare stress levels across individuals and studies.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States a valid limitation, such as the scale assuming all life events are experienced similarly by everyone (ignoring individual differences in appraisal, coping resources, or whether an event is perceived as positive or negative), which can lead to inaccurate predictions for a specific individual.
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.
Distinguish between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping, giving one example of each, and suggest one factor that might determine which strategy a person uses.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Defines problem-focused coping as directly addressing the source of the stressor to remove or reduce it. Gives a valid example, such as creating a study schedule to manage exam stress.
- Defines emotion-focused coping as managing the emotional response to the stressor without necessarily addressing the stressor itself. Gives a valid example, such as seeking emotional support from friends or using relaxation techniques.
- Suggests a valid determining factor, such as whether the stressor is perceived as controllable (favouring problem-focused coping) or uncontrollable (favouring emotion-focused coping), or individual personality differences.
Examiner tip: The perceived controllability of a stressor is the single most important factor in which coping strategy is likely to be effective — using problem-focused coping on a genuinely uncontrollable situation can itself become a source of frustration.
8.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Distinguish between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping, giving one example of each, and suggest one factor that might determine which strategy a person uses.” Their response addresses only this point: “Defines problem-focused coping as directly addressing the source of the stressor to remove or reduce it. Gives a valid example, such as creating a study schedule to manage exam stress.” 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: Defines problem-focused coping as directly addressing the source of the stressor to remove or reduce it. Gives a valid example, such as creating a study schedule to manage exam stress.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Defines emotion-focused coping as managing the emotional response to the stressor without necessarily addressing the stressor itself. Gives a valid example, such as seeking emotional support from friends or using relaxation techniques.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid determining factor, such as whether the stressor is perceived as controllable (favouring problem-focused coping) or uncontrollable (favouring emotion-focused coping), or individual personality differences.
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.
Explain how social support can act as a buffer against the negative health effects of stress.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that social support can provide practical assistance (e.g., help solving the problem causing stress) and emotional reassurance, both of which can reduce the perceived severity of a stressor.
- Explains the 'buffering hypothesis': social support does not necessarily prevent stressful events from occurring, but it moderates (buffers) the relationship between stress exposure and negative health outcomes, so supported individuals show less physiological stress response to the same objective stressor.
- Explains that social support may work partly by reducing the perceived uncontrollability or unpredictability of a stressor, both of which are known to intensify the physiological stress response.
Examiner tip: The 'buffering hypothesis' specifically predicts that social support matters most when stress is high and matters less when stress is low — this interaction pattern (not just a simple main effect) is what research typically looks for as confirming evidence.
10.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Explain how social support can act as a buffer against the negative health effects of stress.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that social support can provide practical assistance (e.g., help solving the problem causing stress) and emotional reassurance, both of which can reduce the perceived severity of a stressor.” 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 social support can provide practical assistance (e.g., help solving the problem causing stress) and emotional reassurance, both of which can reduce the perceived severity of a stressor.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains the 'buffering hypothesis': social support does not necessarily prevent stressful events from occurring, but it moderates (buffers) the relationship between stress exposure and negative health outcomes, so supported individuals show less physiological stress response to the same objective stressor.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that social support may work partly by reducing the perceived uncontrollability or unpredictability of a stressor, both of which are known to intensify the physiological stress response.
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.
Using the theory of planned behaviour, explain why simply providing information about the health risks of smoking is often insufficient to change smoking behaviour.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Outlines the theory of planned behaviour: behaviour is predicted by behavioural intention, which is itself shaped by three factors: attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norms (perceived social pressure), and perceived behavioural control.
- Explains that health risk information primarily targets only one factor (attitude), potentially making a person believe smoking is harmful without necessarily changing their subjective norms (e.g., if their friends/family still smoke and approve) or their perceived behavioural control (e.g., if they believe they are unable to quit due to addiction).
- Concludes that effective health promotion interventions should address all three factors together (e.g., changing social norms around smoking, and building confidence/skills for quitting), not just providing information to shift attitudes alone.
Examiner tip: The theory of planned behaviour's key exam value is explaining the gap between knowledge and behaviour — a person can fully believe a behaviour is risky (attitude) and still not intend to change it if social norms or perceived control are unaddressed.
12.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Using the theory of planned behaviour, explain why simply providing information about the health risks of smoking is often insufficient to change smoking behaviour.” Their response addresses only this point: “Outlines the theory of planned behaviour: behaviour is predicted by behavioural intention, which is itself shaped by three factors: attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norms (perceived social pressure), and perceived behavioural control.” 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: Outlines the theory of planned behaviour: behaviour is predicted by behavioural intention, which is itself shaped by three factors: attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norms (perceived social pressure), and perceived behavioural control.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that health risk information primarily targets only one factor (attitude), potentially making a person believe smoking is harmful without necessarily changing their subjective norms (e.g., if their friends/family still smoke and approve) or their perceived behavioural control (e.g., if they believe they are unable to quit due to addiction).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Concludes that effective health promotion interventions should address all three factors together (e.g., changing social norms around smoking, and building confidence/skills for quitting), not just providing information to shift attitudes alone.
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.
Explain how 'unrealistic optimism' (the belief that one is personally less likely than others to experience a negative health outcome) can act as a barrier to engaging in preventative health behaviour.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Defines unrealistic optimism as a cognitive bias in which individuals believe they are less at risk of a negative health outcome (e.g., lung cancer, heart disease) than the average person, even when their actual risk factors (e.g., smoking) are comparable or higher.
- Explains that this bias reduces the perceived personal relevance of health warnings, since the individual processes the risk information as applying to 'other people' rather than to themselves.
- Explains that since perceived personal susceptibility is a key motivator for engaging in preventative behaviour, this reduced sense of personal risk directly undermines the motivation to change behaviour, even when objective risk information is accurate and well-understood.
Examiner tip: Unrealistic optimism specifically undermines the 'perceived susceptibility' component found in models like the Health Belief Model — connecting this bias to that broader theoretical framework strengthens an HL-level answer.
14.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Explain how 'unrealistic optimism' (the belief that one is personally less likely than others to experience a negative health outcome) can act as a barrier to engaging in preventative health behaviour.” Their response addresses only this point: “Defines unrealistic optimism as a cognitive bias in which individuals believe they are less at risk of a negative health outcome (e.g., lung cancer, heart disease) than the average person, even when their actual risk factors (e.g., smoking) are comparable or higher.” 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: Defines unrealistic optimism as a cognitive bias in which individuals believe they are less at risk of a negative health outcome (e.g., lung cancer, heart disease) than the average person, even when their actual risk factors (e.g., smoking) are comparable or higher.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that this bias reduces the perceived personal relevance of health warnings, since the individual processes the risk information as applying to 'other people' rather than to themselves.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that since perceived personal susceptibility is a key motivator for engaging in preventative behaviour, this reduced sense of personal risk directly undermines the motivation to change behaviour, even when objective risk information is accurate and well-understood.
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.
Explain both a biological and a sociocultural factor that could contribute to the development of obesity, and explain why treating obesity as purely a matter of individual willpower oversimplifies its causes.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains a valid biological factor, such as genetic variation affecting metabolic rate, appetite regulation, or fat storage, which can make some individuals more biologically predisposed to weight gain than others under identical diets.
- Explains a valid sociocultural factor, such as living in a 'food desert' with limited access to affordable healthy food, cultural norms around large portion sizes, or socioeconomic constraints limiting time/resources for exercise and meal preparation.
- Explains that since both biological predisposition and the surrounding food/social environment meaningfully shape eating behaviour and weight, reducing obesity to a single factor of personal willpower ignores substantial causes largely outside an individual's direct control, which can also contribute to unhelpful stigma.
Examiner tip: A strong multi-factor explanation of a health behaviour always integrates at least two levels of analysis (biological and sociocultural here) and explicitly explains why reducing the issue to one factor alone is a mistake.
16.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Explain both a biological and a sociocultural factor that could contribute to the development of obesity, and explain why treating obesity as purely a matter of individual willpower oversimplifies its causes.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains a valid biological factor, such as genetic variation affecting metabolic rate, appetite regulation, or fat storage, which can make some individuals more biologically predisposed to weight gain than others under identical diets.” 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 a valid biological factor, such as genetic variation affecting metabolic rate, appetite regulation, or fat storage, which can make some individuals more biologically predisposed to weight gain than others under identical diets.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains a valid sociocultural factor, such as living in a 'food desert' with limited access to affordable healthy food, cultural norms around large portion sizes, or socioeconomic constraints limiting time/resources for exercise and meal preparation.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that since both biological predisposition and the surrounding food/social environment meaningfully shape eating behaviour and weight, reducing obesity to a single factor of personal willpower ignores substantial causes largely outside an individual's direct control, which can also contribute to unhelpful stigma.
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.
Explain how positive outcome expectancies can contribute to the development of substance use.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Defines outcome expectancies as beliefs about the likely effects of using a substance.
- Explains that believing a substance will reduce stress or increase sociability makes use more attractive.
- Explains that these beliefs can be reinforced by early positive experiences, increasing the chance of repeated use.
Examiner tip: This is a cognitive explanation: what matters is what the person expects, not just the drug's pharmacology.
18.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Explain how positive outcome expectancies can contribute to the development of substance use.” Their response addresses only this point: “Defines outcome expectancies as beliefs about the likely effects of using a substance.” 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: Defines outcome expectancies as beliefs about the likely effects of using a substance.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that believing a substance will reduce stress or increase sociability makes use more attractive.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that these beliefs can be reinforced by early positive experiences, increasing the chance of repeated use.
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.
Explain how peer influence and social norms can promote substance use among adolescents.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that adolescents may imitate friends who use substances (social learning), especially if use is rewarded with approval.
- Explains that perceived norms (believing 'everyone does it') create pressure to conform and fit in.
- Notes that perceived norms are often exaggerated, so correcting them can be a prevention strategy.
Examiner tip: Link the sociocultural factor to a specific mechanism: imitation, approval or conformity pressure.
20.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Explain how peer influence and social norms can promote substance use among adolescents.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that adolescents may imitate friends who use substances (social learning), especially if use is rewarded with approval.” 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 adolescents may imitate friends who use substances (social learning), especially if use is rewarded with approval.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that perceived norms (believing 'everyone does it') create pressure to conform and fit in.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Notes that perceived norms are often exaggerated, so correcting them can be a prevention strategy.
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.
Outline the main components of the Health Belief Model and apply them to a person deciding whether to have an annual flu vaccination.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Outlines perceived susceptibility and severity: believing one could catch flu and that it would be serious.
- Outlines perceived benefits versus barriers: believing the vaccine works versus costs, side-effect fears or inconvenience.
- Outlines cues to action and self-efficacy, such as a reminder from a doctor.
- Applies these to the scenario, e.g. a person with high perceived susceptibility and a reminder is more likely to vaccinate.
Examiner tip: Apply each component to the scenario rather than merely listing them.
22.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Outline the main components of the Health Belief Model and apply them to a person deciding whether to have an annual flu vaccination.” Their response addresses only this point: “Outlines perceived susceptibility and severity: believing one could catch flu and that it would be serious.” 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: Outlines perceived susceptibility and severity: believing one could catch flu and that it would be serious.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Outlines perceived benefits versus barriers: believing the vaccine works versus costs, side-effect fears or inconvenience.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Outlines cues to action and self-efficacy, such as a reminder from a doctor.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Applies these to the scenario, e.g. a person with high perceived susceptibility and a reminder is more likely to vaccinate.
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.
Evaluate the effectiveness of graphic warning labels on cigarette packets as a health promotion strategy.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains how graphic warnings aim to increase perceived severity and fear, motivating quitting.
- Gives supporting evidence, e.g. increases in quit attempts or calls to helplines after introduction.
- Evaluates limitations such as habituation over time, defensive avoidance and lack of attention to self-efficacy.
- Reaches a justified judgement, e.g. most effective as part of a broader programme.
Examiner tip: Fear appeals work best when paired with clear advice that people feel able to follow.
24.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Evaluate the effectiveness of graphic warning labels on cigarette packets as a health promotion strategy.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains how graphic warnings aim to increase perceived severity and fear, motivating quitting.” 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: Explains how graphic warnings aim to increase perceived severity and fear, motivating quitting.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Gives supporting evidence, e.g. increases in quit attempts or calls to helplines after introduction.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Evaluates limitations such as habituation over time, defensive avoidance and lack of attention to self-efficacy.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Reaches a justified judgement, e.g. most effective as part of a broader programme.
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.
Distinguish between a risk factor and a protective factor in health behaviour, giving one example of each.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States that a risk factor increases the likelihood of poor health outcomes, e.g. chronic stress or a family history of addiction.
- States that a protective factor reduces that likelihood, e.g. strong social support or regular exercise.
- Notes that risk and protective factors usually act in combination rather than alone.
Examiner tip: Both factors raise or lower probability; neither guarantees an outcome.
26.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Distinguish between a risk factor and a protective factor in health behaviour, giving one example of each.” Their response addresses only this point: “States that a risk factor increases the likelihood of poor health outcomes, e.g. chronic stress or a family history of addiction.” 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 risk factor increases the likelihood of poor health outcomes, e.g. chronic stress or a family history of addiction.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that a protective factor reduces that likelihood, e.g. strong social support or regular exercise.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Notes that risk and protective factors usually act in combination rather than alone.
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.
Using Lazarus and Folkman's transactional model, explain why two people can experience the same event with different levels of stress.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains primary appraisal: each person judges whether the event is irrelevant, benign or a threat/challenge.
- Explains secondary appraisal: each person judges whether they have the resources to cope.
- Explains that stress arises when demands are appraised as exceeding resources, so the same event can differ in impact.
Examiner tip: Stress depends on appraisal of the event and of one's coping resources, not on the event alone.
28.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Using Lazarus and Folkman's transactional model, explain why two people can experience the same event with different levels of stress.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains primary appraisal: each person judges whether the event is irrelevant, benign or a threat/challenge.” 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 primary appraisal: each person judges whether the event is irrelevant, benign or a threat/challenge.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains secondary appraisal: each person judges whether they have the resources to cope.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that stress arises when demands are appraised as exceeding resources, so the same event can differ in impact.
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.
State one strength and one limitation of using a longitudinal design to investigate the link between stress and illness.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States a strength such as following the same people over time, allowing researchers to see whether stress precedes illness.
- States a limitation such as participant attrition, cost and time, or inability to control confounding variables over many years.
Examiner tip: Longitudinal designs help establish sequence but still cannot fully prove causation.
30.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “State one strength and one limitation of using a longitudinal design to investigate the link between stress and illness.” Their response addresses only this point: “States a strength such as following the same people over time, allowing researchers to see whether stress precedes illness.” 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: States a strength such as following the same people over time, allowing researchers to see whether stress precedes illness.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States a limitation such as participant attrition, cost and time, or inability to control confounding variables over many years.
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.