IB DP Psychology: Option: Psychology of human relationships – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions. They use Paper 2’s 22-mark extended-response format, but not the paper’s exact wording or selection – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

Related: Human relationships revision notes and the human relationships study guide.

IB DP Psychology Paper 2 (first assessment 2019) sets three 22-mark essays on the human relationships option. The nine questions below match the option’s nine content points, one each, with a model plan organised by the ERQ criteria. Allow about an hour per essay.

How the essays are marked

Criterion	Marks	Top-band expectation
A Focus on the question	2	Explains the problem or issue posed by the question
B Knowledge and understanding	6	Accurate, detailed, well-explained terminology
C Use of research	6	Relevant research, explained and linked to the question
D Critical thinking	6	Well-developed evaluation and consideration of alternatives
E Clarity and organisation	2	Clear and coherent throughout

Questions

1. Evaluate research on the formation of personal relationships. [22]

2. Discuss the role of communication in personal relationships. [22]

3. Evaluate explanations for why relationships change or end. [22]

4. Discuss cooperation and competition in groups. [22]

5. Evaluate research on prejudice and discrimination. [22]

6. Discuss the origins of conflict and strategies for conflict resolution. [22]

7. Evaluate research on bystanderism. [22]

8. Contrast two explanations of prosocial behaviour. [22]

9. Discuss strategies for promoting prosocial behaviour. [22]

Model plans

1. Formation.

• C: Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) proximity; Buss (1989) cross-cultural mate preferences; Fisher et al. (2005) neural correlates of romantic love.
• D: Festinger’s housing sample was homogeneous married students; Buss relied on self-reported preferences rather than actual choices, and his samples were not always representative; fMRI shows correlation and uses small samples. Different approaches explain different aspects – environment, evolution, neurochemistry.

2. Communication.

• B: communication patterns, self-disclosure, attributions.
• C: Gottman’s four horsemen and the Buehlman, Gottman and Katz (1992) oral-history interview; Bradbury and Fincham (1990) on attributions.
• D: observational and interview data from mainly American married couples; correlation between communication and outcomes does not show direction; prediction accuracy may be lower in replications.

3. Change or end.

• B: social exchange; Rusbult’s investment model.
• C: studies testing the investment model with dating couples over time.
• D: the model predicts commitment well, but relies on self-report; it does not explain abusive relationships fully without considering fear and dependence; cultural differences in relationship dissolution.

4. Cooperation and competition.

• B: realistic conflict theory; superordinate goals.
• C: Sherif et al. (Robbers Cave): competition between two groups of boys produced hostility, and superordinate goals such as repairing the water supply reduced it.
• D: field experiment with high ecological validity but a small, culturally narrow sample; ethical issues of induced conflict and lack of consent; SIT suggests competition is not necessary for in-group bias (Tajfel, 1971).

5. Prejudice and discrimination.

• B: definitions (attitude versus behaviour); SIT; stereotypes.
• C: Tajfel et al. (1971); Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) field experiment on hiring discrimination.
• D: minimal groups are artificial; the CV study shows behaviour in a real setting, though names may signal class as well as race; ethics of deceiving employers.

6. Conflict and resolution.

• B: origins – competition, identity, perceived threat; resolution – contact hypothesis, cooperation, superordinate goals.
• C: Sherif et al.; Allport’s (1954) conditions for contact; Aronson’s jigsaw classroom.
• D: contact works best under the stated conditions, which are rarely all present; jigsaw effects are often short-term and classroom-specific.

7. Bystanderism.

• B: diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, decision model, cost-reward model.
• C: Darley and Latané (1968); Piliavin et al. (1969).
• D: lab study high control but low ecological validity and deception; Piliavin’s field study showed higher helping rates than lab studies, possibly because the victim was visible and escape difficult; lack of informed consent.

8. Two explanations of prosocial behaviour (contrast).

• B/C: empathy-altruism (Batson et al., 1981) versus egoistic explanations such as negative-state relief or the cost-reward model; kin selection as a biological alternative.
• D: Batson’s lab manipulations are artificial and involve deception; egoistic accounts fit everyday helping with low costs; motives are hard to observe directly.

9. Promoting prosocial behaviour.

• B: modelling, prosocial media, education about bystander effects, increasing personal responsibility.
• C: research on prosocial content in children’s television; studies showing that learning about bystander research increases later helping.
• D: short-term effects and lab settings; cultural differences in norms of helping; difficulty measuring real-world behaviour.

Worked paragraph: evaluating a field experiment (Question 7)

Piliavin et al. (1969) staged collapses on New York subway trains, with a confederate who appeared either ill (carrying a cane) or drunk. The ill victim received help in nearly all trials, the drunk victim less often, and the size of the group did not reduce helping as Darley and Latané’s findings predicted. This suggests that in face-to-face emergencies where escape is difficult, a cost-reward calculation explains behaviour better than diffusion of responsibility. The field setting gives the study high ecological validity, but passengers could not consent or be debriefed, and observers could not control who was in each carriage, so findings must be weighed against controlled lab research.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use the same study in two essays? Yes – Tajfel’s research fits both prejudice and conflict – but link it to each question.

How many approaches should I use? Using more than one approach (for example evolutionary and sociocultural) is a strong way to show critical thinking in criterion D.

What is the most common error in relationship essays? Describing studies without evaluating them; criterion D carries six of the 22 marks.