IB · PSYCH SL

Psychology SL

Human relationships (option) — Paper 2

Name: ____________________Date: October 14, 2026

1.
A researcher proposes that people are more attracted to others who share similar attitudes and values, rather than those with opposing views. (a) Name the principle this describes. (b) Suggest one research method that could be used to test this idea, briefly justifying your choice. (c) State one factor other than similarity that research suggests also influences attraction.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names the similarity principle/attraction (or a comparably named attitude-similarity theory of attraction).
- Suggests a valid research method, such as a correlational survey study or a controlled experiment manipulating perceived similarity.
- Briefly justifies why the suggested method suits testing this specific relationship, such as a correlational study measuring naturally occurring similarity and attraction together.
- States a valid additional factor, such as physical proximity, physical attractiveness, or reciprocal liking.
Examiner tip: When asked to suggest a method, briefly justify why it fits the specific claim being tested rather than naming a method in isolation.
2.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A researcher proposes that people are more attracted to others who share similar attitudes and values, rather than those with opposing views. (a) Name the principle this describes. (b) Suggest one research method that could be used to test this idea, briefly justifying your choice. (c) State one factor other than similarity that research suggests also influences attraction.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names the similarity principle/attraction (or a comparably named attitude-similarity theory of attraction).” 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 the similarity principle/attraction (or a comparably named attitude-similarity theory of attraction).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid research method, such as a correlational survey study or a controlled experiment manipulating perceived similarity.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Briefly justifies why the suggested method suits testing this specific relationship, such as a correlational study measuring naturally occurring similarity and attraction together.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States a valid additional factor, such as physical proximity, physical attractiveness, or reciprocal liking.
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 longitudinal study follows 200 newly married couples for 10 years, recording relationship satisfaction and observing communication patterns during recorded arguments. Researchers find that couples showing high levels of contempt during arguments are more likely to divorce. (a) Identify the research method used. (b) State one strength of using a longitudinal design for this research question. (c) State one limitation of using a longitudinal design. (d) Explain why this study can identify contempt as a predictor of divorce but cannot alone establish that contempt causes divorce.
[5 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies the method as a longitudinal, correlational, naturalistic observation-based study.
- States a valid strength, such as being able to track real changes in the same couples over time rather than relying on a single snapshot.
- States a valid limitation, such as high cost, participant attrition including through divorce itself, or lack of control over confounding variables.
- Explains that the study is correlational: contempt and divorce are observed together, but other unmeasured factors could influence both.
- States that only a controlled experiment manipulating contempt directly, which would be unethical here, could establish causation, so this design can only establish an association.
Examiner tip: A predictor identified in a correlational study is not automatically a cause; always check whether an experimental design was actually used before accepting a causal claim.
4.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A longitudinal study follows 200 newly married couples for 10 years, recording relationship satisfaction and observing communication patterns during recorded arguments. Researchers find that couples showing high levels of contempt during arguments are more likely to divorce. (a) Identify the research method used. (b) State one strength of using a longitudinal design for this research question. (c) State one limitation of using a longitudinal design. (d) Explain why this study can identify contempt as a predictor of divorce but cannot alone establish that contempt causes divorce.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies the method as a longitudinal, correlational, naturalistic observation-based study.” 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: Identifies the method as a longitudinal, correlational, naturalistic observation-based study.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States a valid strength, such as being able to track real changes in the same couples over time rather than relying on a single snapshot.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States a valid limitation, such as high cost, participant attrition including through divorce itself, or lack of control over confounding variables.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that the study is correlational: contempt and divorce are observed together, but other unmeasured factors could influence both.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that only a controlled experiment manipulating contempt directly, which would be unethical here, could establish causation, so this design can only establish an association.
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 study on relationship maintenance identifies that couples who make a deliberate effort to interpret their partner's minor mistakes charitably (for example, 'they're just tired' rather than 'they don't care') tend to report higher long-term satisfaction. (a) Name the cognitive process being described. (b) Suggest one practical implication of this finding for relationship counselling.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names a benign/charitable attribution style, attributing behaviour to external or situational rather than internal, negative causes.
- Explains briefly that this attribution style reduces perceived threat or blame directed at the partner.
- Suggests a valid practical implication, such as counselling that trains couples to consciously practise more charitable attributions during minor conflicts.
Examiner tip: Link a suggested practical application directly and specifically to the cognitive process just named, rather than giving generic relationship advice.
6.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A study on relationship maintenance identifies that couples who make a deliberate effort to interpret their partner's minor mistakes charitably (for example, 'they're just tired' rather than 'they don't care') tend to report higher long-term satisfaction. (a) Name the cognitive process being described. (b) Suggest one practical implication of this finding for relationship counselling.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names a benign/charitable attribution style, attributing behaviour to external or situational rather than internal, negative causes.” 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 a benign/charitable attribution style, attributing behaviour to external or situational rather than internal, negative causes.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains briefly that this attribution style reduces perceived threat or blame directed at the partner.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid practical implication, such as counselling that trains couples to consciously practise more charitable attributions during minor conflicts.
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.
Festinger, Schachter, and Back studied friendship formation among residents of a student apartment complex and found that residents were far more likely to become friends with people who lived in nearby apartments, especially next-door neighbours, than with people living further away, even within the same small building. (a) Name the factor in attraction this study demonstrates. (b) Explain the psychological mechanism proposed to explain why physical closeness increases liking.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names proximity (physical/functional distance) as the factor.
- Explains the mere exposure effect: repeated, unplanned contact with the same person increases familiarity, and familiarity itself tends to increase liking.
- Explains that greater proximity simply creates more frequent, low-effort opportunities for interaction, which over time builds familiarity and attraction without requiring deliberate effort from either person.
Examiner tip: Proximity effects are often explained through the mere exposure effect specifically — do not just say 'they saw each other more', explain why more exposure itself increases liking.
8.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Festinger, Schachter, and Back studied friendship formation among residents of a student apartment complex and found that residents were far more likely to become friends with people who lived in nearby apartments, especially next-door neighbours, than with people living further away, even within the same small building. (a) Name the factor in attraction this study demonstrates. (b) Explain the psychological mechanism proposed to explain why physical closeness increases liking.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names proximity (physical/functional distance) as the factor.” 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 proximity (physical/functional distance) as the factor.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains the mere exposure effect: repeated, unplanned contact with the same person increases familiarity, and familiarity itself tends to increase liking.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that greater proximity simply creates more frequent, low-effort opportunities for interaction, which over time builds familiarity and attraction without requiring deliberate effort from either person.
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.
Murstein (1972) compared photographs of real engaged or steady couples with the same people randomly re-paired, and found that the real couples were rated as significantly more similar in physical attractiveness to each other than the random pairs were, even though people often say they would prefer the most attractive partner possible. (a) Name the hypothesis this finding supports. (b) Suggest one psychological reason people tend to end up with partners of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves, despite an initial preference for maximum attractiveness.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names the matching hypothesis.
- Suggests that people fear rejection from a much more attractive potential partner, so they realistically pursue partners closer to their own perceived level of attractiveness to reduce the risk of being turned down.
- Notes that this represents a realistic compromise between an idealised preference and the practical likelihood of a relationship actually succeeding.
Examiner tip: The matching hypothesis is not about people wanting a similarly attractive partner — it is about realistic self-assessment and fear of rejection shaping who they actually approach and stay with.
10.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Murstein (1972) compared photographs of real engaged or steady couples with the same people randomly re-paired, and found that the real couples were rated as significantly more similar in physical attractiveness to each other than the random pairs were, even though people often say they would prefer the most attractive partner possible. (a) Name the hypothesis this finding supports. (b) Suggest one psychological reason people tend to end up with partners of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves, despite an initial preference for maximum attractiveness.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names the matching 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 the matching hypothesis.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests that people fear rejection from a much more attractive potential partner, so they realistically pursue partners closer to their own perceived level of attractiveness to reduce the risk of being turned down.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Notes that this represents a realistic compromise between an idealised preference and the practical likelihood of a relationship actually succeeding.
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.
According to social penetration theory, romantic partners become closer over time by gradually sharing increasingly personal information, moving from superficial topics (such as hobbies) towards deeper, more private ones (such as fears or past traumas), and this sharing is normally reciprocal between both partners. (a) Name the specific process being described. (b) Explain why reciprocity (both partners disclosing at a similar depth) is considered important for this process to successfully build intimacy.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names self-disclosure (as described by social penetration theory).
- Explains that reciprocal self-disclosure signals mutual trust and equal vulnerability between partners.
- Explains that if one partner discloses deeply while the other does not reciprocate, the relationship can feel unbalanced or unsafe, slowing or reversing the growth of intimacy, whereas balanced reciprocal disclosure steadily deepens the relationship.
Examiner tip: Social penetration theory is often visualised as peeling back layers of an onion — depth (how personal) and breadth (how many topics) both increase gradually and, ideally, reciprocally.
12.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to social penetration theory, romantic partners become closer over time by gradually sharing increasingly personal information, moving from superficial topics (such as hobbies) towards deeper, more private ones (such as fears or past traumas), and this sharing is normally reciprocal between both partners. (a) Name the specific process being described. (b) Explain why reciprocity (both partners disclosing at a similar depth) is considered important for this process to successfully build intimacy.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names self-disclosure (as described by social penetration theory).” 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 self-disclosure (as described by social penetration theory).
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that reciprocal self-disclosure signals mutual trust and equal vulnerability between partners.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that if one partner discloses deeply while the other does not reciprocate, the relationship can feel unbalanced or unsafe, slowing or reversing the growth of intimacy, whereas balanced reciprocal disclosure steadily deepens the relationship.
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.
According to Sternberg's triangular theory of love, love is made up of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. A couple who feel deep emotional closeness and have decided to stay together long-term, but report that physical/romantic excitement has faded, would be described by Sternberg as experiencing which type of love? (a) Identify the type of love described. (b) Identify a different combination of the three components that would instead describe a whirlwind holiday romance expected to end when the holiday does.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies companionate love: high intimacy and high commitment, but low passion.
- Identifies infatuation (passion alone, with little intimacy and no commitment) as the best fit for a whirlwind holiday romance; romantic love (passion with intimacy but no commitment) is also acceptable.
- Briefly justifies each identification by referring to the presence or absence of the specific component involved (intimacy, passion, commitment).
Examiner tip: Always justify a Sternberg love-type classification by explicitly naming which of the three components (intimacy, passion, commitment) are present or absent, not just naming the resulting love type.
14.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to Sternberg's triangular theory of love, love is made up of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. A couple who feel deep emotional closeness and have decided to stay together long-term, but report that physical/romantic excitement has faded, would be described by Sternberg as experiencing which type of love? (a) Identify the type of love described. (b) Identify a different combination of the three components that would instead describe a whirlwind holiday romance expected to end when the holiday does.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies companionate love: high intimacy and high commitment, but low passion.” 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: Identifies companionate love: high intimacy and high commitment, but low passion.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Identifies infatuation (passion alone, with little intimacy and no commitment) as the best fit for a whirlwind holiday romance; romantic love (passion with intimacy but no commitment) is also acceptable.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Briefly justifies each identification by referring to the presence or absence of the specific component involved (intimacy, passion, 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.
15.
According to Duck's phase model of relationship dissolution, a partner first privately begins to feel dissatisfied and broods over the relationship's problems alone (the intra-psychic phase), before eventually confronting their partner directly about these problems. (a) Name the phase that would typically follow this direct confrontation between the partners. (b) Name a later phase in which the couple's shared social network becomes involved, and friends may be asked to take sides.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names the dyadic phase, in which the partners discuss the relationship's problems directly with each other.
- Names the social phase, in which the break-up becomes known to, and involves, the couple's wider social network.
Examiner tip: Duck's model runs in order: intra-psychic (private) → dyadic (between partners) → social (wider network) → grave-dressing (constructing a public account of why it ended).
16.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to Duck's phase model of relationship dissolution, a partner first privately begins to feel dissatisfied and broods over the relationship's problems alone (the intra-psychic phase), before eventually confronting their partner directly about these problems. (a) Name the phase that would typically follow this direct confrontation between the partners. (b) Name a later phase in which the couple's shared social network becomes involved, and friends may be asked to take sides.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names the dyadic phase, in which the partners discuss the relationship's problems directly with each other.” 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 dyadic phase, in which the partners discuss the relationship's problems directly with each other.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Names the social phase, in which the break-up becomes known to, and involves, the couple's wider social network.
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 equity theory, relationship satisfaction depends not simply on how many rewards a person receives from a relationship, but on whether the ratio of their own contributions (inputs) to rewards (outputs) feels fair compared with their partner's ratio. (a) Explain why a partner who contributes little but also receives little could still feel satisfied under equity theory. (b) Explain why a partner who receives a great deal, but contributes far less than their partner, might still feel dissatisfied (e.g., guilty) under equity theory.
[4 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that equity theory judges fairness by the ratio of inputs to outputs, not the absolute amount, so two partners who both contribute little and receive little can still have matching, and therefore fair, ratios.
- States that this means low absolute investment is not itself the problem in equity theory, as long as both partners' ratios remain balanced with each other.
- Explains that a partner who receives much more than they contribute, relative to their partner, is 'over-benefited', creating an unequal ratio.
- Explains that equity theory predicts even the over-benefited partner can feel discomfort (such as guilt) from this imbalance, since the theory is about perceived fairness of the relationship as a whole, not simply about maximising one's own personal rewards.
Examiner tip: Equity theory's key insight is that both under-benefiting AND over-benefiting from a relationship can reduce satisfaction — it is the imbalance itself, not who benefits more, that causes discomfort.
18.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “According to equity theory, relationship satisfaction depends not simply on how many rewards a person receives from a relationship, but on whether the ratio of their own contributions (inputs) to rewards (outputs) feels fair compared with their partner's ratio. (a) Explain why a partner who contributes little but also receives little could still feel satisfied under equity theory. (b) Explain why a partner who receives a great deal, but contributes far less than their partner, might still feel dissatisfied (e.g., guilty) under equity theory.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that equity theory judges fairness by the ratio of inputs to outputs, not the absolute amount, so two partners who both contribute little and receive little can still have matching, and therefore fair, ratios.” 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 that equity theory judges fairness by the ratio of inputs to outputs, not the absolute amount, so two partners who both contribute little and receive little can still have matching, and therefore fair, ratios.
- Identifies the missing requirement: States that this means low absolute investment is not itself the problem in equity theory, as long as both partners' ratios remain balanced with each other.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that a partner who receives much more than they contribute, relative to their partner, is 'over-benefited', creating an unequal ratio.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that equity theory predicts even the over-benefited partner can feel discomfort (such as guilt) from this imbalance, since the theory is about perceived fairness of the relationship as a whole, not simply about maximising one's own personal rewards.
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.
Evolutionary psychologists propose that men and women differ, on average, in what they prioritise when selecting a long-term mate, because ancestrally, women faced greater biological costs from reproduction (pregnancy, childbirth, nursing) than men. (a) Name the theory that explains mate-preference differences in terms of these differing reproductive costs. (b) According to this theory, suggest one trait women might be predicted to prioritise in a long-term partner, and explain why.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Names parental investment theory.
- Suggests a valid trait, such as resources, status, or a demonstrated willingness/ability to provide long-term support.
- Explains that because a woman's biological investment in each offspring is high and relatively fixed, the theory predicts she would benefit from prioritising a partner able to provide resources that improve the offspring's chances of survival, rather than prioritising traits linked mainly to short-term mating opportunities.
Examiner tip: Evolutionary explanations describe average tendencies shaped by ancestral reproductive pressures, not fixed rules for every individual — a strong answer notes this is about statistical tendencies, not universal behaviour.
20.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Evolutionary psychologists propose that men and women differ, on average, in what they prioritise when selecting a long-term mate, because ancestrally, women faced greater biological costs from reproduction (pregnancy, childbirth, nursing) than men. (a) Name the theory that explains mate-preference differences in terms of these differing reproductive costs. (b) According to this theory, suggest one trait women might be predicted to prioritise in a long-term partner, and explain why.” Their response addresses only this point: “Names parental investment theory.” 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 parental investment theory.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid trait, such as resources, status, or a demonstrated willingness/ability to provide long-term support.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that because a woman's biological investment in each offspring is high and relatively fixed, the theory predicts she would benefit from prioritising a partner able to provide resources that improve the offspring's chances of survival, rather than prioritising traits linked mainly to short-term mating opportunities.
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.
A couple in a long-distance relationship maintains daily contact through video calls and instant messaging, reporting that this helps them feel emotionally close despite being physically apart. However, one of them also reports feeling anxious checking the other's social media activity for signs of infidelity. (a) Explain one way communication technology can benefit the maintenance of a long-distance relationship. (b) Explain one way the same technology can create new sources of relationship strain that did not exist before its widespread use.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that frequent video calls and messaging allow partners to maintain a sense of shared daily experience and emotional closeness, functioning as a substitute for the face-to-face contact they lack.
- Explains that easy access to a partner's social media activity can create new opportunities for surveillance and suspicion, such as monitoring who the partner interacts with online, that were not possible before this technology existed.
- Notes that this illustrates technology's dual role: it can support relationship maintenance across distance while simultaneously introducing new specific stressors around monitoring and trust.
Examiner tip: A balanced HL-style answer on technology and relationships always addresses both a genuine benefit and a genuine cost, rather than treating technology as purely positive or purely negative.
22.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A couple in a long-distance relationship maintains daily contact through video calls and instant messaging, reporting that this helps them feel emotionally close despite being physically apart. However, one of them also reports feeling anxious checking the other's social media activity for signs of infidelity. (a) Explain one way communication technology can benefit the maintenance of a long-distance relationship. (b) Explain one way the same technology can create new sources of relationship strain that did not exist before its widespread use.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that frequent video calls and messaging allow partners to maintain a sense of shared daily experience and emotional closeness, functioning as a substitute for the face-to-face contact they lack.” 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 frequent video calls and messaging allow partners to maintain a sense of shared daily experience and emotional closeness, functioning as a substitute for the face-to-face contact they lack.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that easy access to a partner's social media activity can create new opportunities for surveillance and suspicion, such as monitoring who the partner interacts with online, that were not possible before this technology existed.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Notes that this illustrates technology's dual role: it can support relationship maintenance across distance while simultaneously introducing new specific stressors around monitoring and trust.
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.
In some cultures with more collectivist values, marriages are traditionally arranged by families based on factors such as family compatibility and social standing, while in more individualist cultures, marriages are typically based on romantic love freely chosen by the two individuals. (a) Suggest one reason collectivist cultures might place less emphasis on romantic love as the basis for marriage compared with individualist cultures. (b) Explain why a psychologist should be cautious about concluding that romantic-love marriages are simply 'better' based on research conducted mainly in individualist Western cultures.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Suggests a valid reason, such as collectivist cultures prioritising the wellbeing, stability, and reputation of the wider family or group over the individual romantic preferences of the couple.
- Explains that research defining relationship 'success' primarily using individualist Western criteria (such as personal romantic satisfaction) risks ethnocentrism: judging other cultures' practices by standards that may not reflect what those cultures themselves value or define as success.
- Concludes that a genuinely fair comparison would need to assess relationship outcomes using criteria meaningful within each culture's own value system, rather than a single, culturally specific standard applied universally.
Examiner tip: Cross-cultural psychology consistently warns against ethnocentrism: assuming the norms of the researcher's own culture are the universal standard against which all other cultures should be judged.
24.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “In some cultures with more collectivist values, marriages are traditionally arranged by families based on factors such as family compatibility and social standing, while in more individualist cultures, marriages are typically based on romantic love freely chosen by the two individuals. (a) Suggest one reason collectivist cultures might place less emphasis on romantic love as the basis for marriage compared with individualist cultures. (b) Explain why a psychologist should be cautious about concluding that romantic-love marriages are simply 'better' based on research conducted mainly in individualist Western cultures.” Their response addresses only this point: “Suggests a valid reason, such as collectivist cultures prioritising the wellbeing, stability, and reputation of the wider family or group over the individual romantic preferences of the couple.” 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: Suggests a valid reason, such as collectivist cultures prioritising the wellbeing, stability, and reputation of the wider family or group over the individual romantic preferences of the couple.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains that research defining relationship 'success' primarily using individualist Western criteria (such as personal romantic satisfaction) risks ethnocentrism: judging other cultures' practices by standards that may not reflect what those cultures themselves value or define as success.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Concludes that a genuinely fair comparison would need to assess relationship outcomes using criteria meaningful within each culture's own value system, rather than a single, culturally specific standard applied universally.
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.
Hazan and Shaver proposed that the type of attachment an infant forms with their primary caregiver, as originally described by Ainsworth's research, predicts the style of romantic attachment that person tends to show as an adult. (a) State this general proposal in your own words. (b) Suggest one adult romantic relationship behaviour that might be predicted by an anxious/insecure infant attachment style.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- States the continuity hypothesis: early infant attachment style shapes a working mental model of relationships that carries forward into, and influences, adult romantic attachment style.
- Suggests a plausible adult behaviour linked to anxious/insecure attachment, such as excessive worry about a partner's commitment, heightened jealousy, or a strong need for reassurance in the relationship.
- Briefly links this suggested behaviour back to the infant's original insecurity about the availability and reliability of their caregiver.
Examiner tip: The Hazan and Shaver continuity hypothesis is correlational: it links infant and adult attachment styles, but does not claim early attachment rigidly determines adult relationship behaviour with certainty.
26.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Hazan and Shaver proposed that the type of attachment an infant forms with their primary caregiver, as originally described by Ainsworth's research, predicts the style of romantic attachment that person tends to show as an adult. (a) State this general proposal in your own words. (b) Suggest one adult romantic relationship behaviour that might be predicted by an anxious/insecure infant attachment style.” Their response addresses only this point: “States the continuity hypothesis: early infant attachment style shapes a working mental model of relationships that carries forward into, and influences, adult romantic attachment style.” 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 the continuity hypothesis: early infant attachment style shapes a working mental model of relationships that carries forward into, and influences, adult romantic attachment style.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a plausible adult behaviour linked to anxious/insecure attachment, such as excessive worry about a partner's commitment, heightened jealousy, or a strong need for reassurance in the relationship.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Briefly links this suggested behaviour back to the infant's original insecurity about the availability and reliability of their caregiver.
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 studying relationship satisfaction asks couples to complete a questionnaire about how often they argue and how satisfied they are with their relationship, to be shown to the researcher only (not their partner). (a) Identify a potential weakness of using self-report questionnaires to study sensitive personal information like this. (b) Suggest one way the researcher could try to reduce this specific weakness.
[3 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Identifies social desirability bias: participants may under-report arguments or over-report satisfaction to present their relationship, or themselves, in a more favourable light.
- Explains why this bias is a particular risk for this topic specifically, since relationship conflict and satisfaction are personal and potentially embarrassing to admit honestly.
- Suggests a valid way to reduce it, such as guaranteeing full anonymity/confidentiality, using validated indirect measures, or explicitly telling participants their partner will never see their individual answers.
Examiner tip: Social desirability bias is especially likely whenever a self-report measure touches on personal, private, or potentially embarrassing behaviour — always consider it first for relationship, sexuality, or conflict research.
28.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “A researcher studying relationship satisfaction asks couples to complete a questionnaire about how often they argue and how satisfied they are with their relationship, to be shown to the researcher only (not their partner). (a) Identify a potential weakness of using self-report questionnaires to study sensitive personal information like this. (b) Suggest one way the researcher could try to reduce this specific weakness.” Their response addresses only this point: “Identifies social desirability bias: participants may under-report arguments or over-report satisfaction to present their relationship, or themselves, in a more favourable light.” 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: Identifies social desirability bias: participants may under-report arguments or over-report satisfaction to present their relationship, or themselves, in a more favourable light.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Explains why this bias is a particular risk for this topic specifically, since relationship conflict and satisfaction are personal and potentially embarrassing to admit honestly.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid way to reduce it, such as guaranteeing full anonymity/confidentiality, using validated indirect measures, or explicitly telling participants their partner will never see their individual answers.
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.
Online dating platforms often use algorithms that match users based on stated preferences and behavioural data, rather than relationships forming through chance face-to-face encounters as they traditionally did. (a) Explain one way this could genuinely broaden a person's pool of potential partners compared with relying only on their existing social circle and physical location. (b) Suggest one limitation of relying on an algorithm's data-based matching to predict genuine long-term relationship compatibility.
[2 marks] · no calculator
Marking points
- Explains that algorithmic matching removes the limits of proximity and existing social networks that traditionally constrained who a person was likely to meet, exposing them to a much larger and more diverse pool of potential partners.
- Suggests a valid limitation, such as the algorithm relying on stated preferences or easily quantifiable traits that may not actually predict real-world chemistry, communication style, or long-term compatibility, which typically only become apparent through direct interaction over time.
Examiner tip: A strong evaluation of algorithmic matching separates what data can measure easily (stated preferences, demographics) from what actually predicts relationship success (communication patterns, in-person chemistry), which is much harder to quantify.
30.
Marking analysis: A learner attempts the following task: “Online dating platforms often use algorithms that match users based on stated preferences and behavioural data, rather than relationships forming through chance face-to-face encounters as they traditionally did. (a) Explain one way this could genuinely broaden a person's pool of potential partners compared with relying only on their existing social circle and physical location. (b) Suggest one limitation of relying on an algorithm's data-based matching to predict genuine long-term relationship compatibility.” Their response addresses only this point: “Explains that algorithmic matching removes the limits of proximity and existing social networks that traditionally constrained who a person was likely to meet, exposing them to a much larger and more diverse pool of potential partners.” 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: Explains that algorithmic matching removes the limits of proximity and existing social networks that traditionally constrained who a person was likely to meet, exposing them to a much larger and more diverse pool of potential partners.
- Identifies the missing requirement: Suggests a valid limitation, such as the algorithm relying on stated preferences or easily quantifiable traits that may not actually predict real-world chemistry, communication style, or long-term compatibility, which typically only become apparent through direct interaction over time.
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.