IB Psychology Exam Studies Paper 2 (Development, Relationships)

Zajonc 1968 (Formation of Relationships)

AIM:
To investigate whether the presence of others improves performance (social facilitation) or can sometimes impair it, depending on task difficulty.

METHOD:
Theoretical explanation supported by experimental research

• Based on observations and controlled lab studies of performance under social presence

• Comparative analysis of simple vs complex tasks

PROCEDURE:

• Participants completed tasks either:

  • alone

  • or in the presence of others (co-actors/audience)

• Tasks varied in difficulty:

  • simple/well-learned tasks (e.g. cycling, word recognition)

  • complex/new tasks (e.g. learning tasks, problem-solving)

RESULTS:
Presence of others:

• improved performance on simple tasks

• reduced performance on complex tasks

• This pattern was consistent across multiple studies

CONCLUSION:
The presence of others increases physiological arousal

• Arousal:

  • enhances dominant responses → improves easy/well-learned tasks

  • interferes with learning new/complex tasks

• This is called the social facilitation effect

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Strong experimental support from multiple studies

• Clear and predictable pattern of behaviour

• High ecological validity for everyday performance (sports, exams, public tasks)

Limitations

• Oversimplifies performance (not all tasks fit neatly into “simple vs complex”)

• Individual differences (confidence, personality) not accounted for

Markey and Markey 2007 (Formation of Relationships)

AIM:
To investigate whether exposure to sexualized media influences body image and eating attitudes, particularly in relation to media internalization of ideal body standards.

METHOD:
Correlational study

• Survey method (questionnaires)

• Self-report measures

• Cross-sectional design

PROCEDURE:

• Participants (adolescents/young adults) completed questionnaires measuring:

  • exposure to sexualized media (TV, magazines, internet)

  • body dissatisfaction

  • eating attitudes and behaviours

  • internalization of appearance ideals (thin/attractive body standards)

• Researchers analysed relationships between media exposure and psychological outcomes

RESULTS:
Higher exposure to sexualized media was linked with:

• increased body dissatisfaction

• stronger internalization of appearance ideals

• more disordered eating attitudes

• Effects were stronger in females, but also present in males

CONCLUSION:
Media exposure is associated with negative body image outcomes

• People may internalize media ideals, leading to:

  • comparison with unrealistic standards

  • dissatisfaction with their own appearance

• Supports the idea that media influences self-perception and behaviour

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Large sample sizes in many versions of the study

• High ecological validity (real media consumption)

• Identifies gender differences in media effects

Limitations

• Correlational → cannot establish cause and effect

• Self-report data → social desirability and bias

• Cultural factors not fully controlled

• Cannot separate media influence from peer/family influence

Gottman (Communication, Why Relationships End, Research Methods)

AIM:
To investigate whether emotional communication patterns in couples can predict relationship stability or divorce.

METHOD:
Longitudinal study

• Observational research

• Laboratory-based interaction tasks

• Video and physiological analysis

PROCEDURE:

• Married couples were asked to:

  • discuss areas of conflict in their relationship

• Their interactions were recorded and analysed for:

  • verbal communication (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling)

  • non-verbal behaviour (facial expressions, tone)

  • physiological responses (heart rate, sweating)

• Couples were followed up over time to see if they stayed together or divorced

RESULTS:
Gottman identified “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”:

• criticism

• contempt (strongest predictor)

• defensiveness

• stonewalling

• Couples showing high levels of these behaviours were more likely to divorce

• Stable couples showed more:

  • positive interactions

  • repair attempts (humour, reassurance, compromise)

CONCLUSION:
Relationship stability can be predicted by communication patterns

• Negative emotional communication is a strong indicator of relationship breakdown

• Emotional regulation and positive interaction are key to long-term relationships

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• High ecological validity (real couples, real conflicts)

• Longitudinal design → predictive power over time

• Real-world application (relationship counselling, therapy)

Limitations

• Observed setting may alter natural behaviour (demand characteristics)

• Ethical concerns (discussing conflict may cause distress)

• Correlation vs causation (communication predicts but may not cause divorce)

Altman and Taylor 1973 (Communication)

AIM:
To explain how relationships develop through increasing self-disclosure over time, known as the Social Penetration Theory.

METHOD:
Theoretical model (not a single experiment)

• Based on observational and correlational research on interpersonal relationships

• Uses real-life relationship patterns to form a framework

KEY IDEA/MODEL:

• Altman & Taylor proposed that relationships develop like an onion with layers:

  • Peripheral layers (outer layer)

    • superficial information (e.g. hobbies, basic facts)

  • Intermediate layers

    • personal attitudes and opinions

  • Central layer (core)

    • deep beliefs, values, fears, and self-concept

  Relationship development process:

  • Orientation stage → low self-disclosure

  • Exploratory affective stage → more personal sharing

  • Affective stage → emotional and private disclosure

  • Stable stage → deep trust and high self-disclosure

RESULTS:
Successful relationships tend to show:

• gradual increase in self-disclosure

• reciprocal sharing of personal information

• Failure to increase depth of disclosure often leads to weaker relationships

CONCLUSION:
Relationship development is driven by gradual self-disclosure

• Trust builds as people move from surface-level to deeper communication

• Depth and breadth of disclosure determine relationship strength

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Intuitive and easy-to-understand model

• Supported by real-life relationship patterns

• High ecological validity (based on real interpersonal behaviour)

Limitations

• Not all relationships follow a gradual progression (e.g. online relationships, hookups)

• Cultural bias (assumes Western norms of self-disclosure)

• Overemphasises self-disclosure and ignores other factors (e.g. attraction, similarity, rewards)

Flora and Segrin 2003 (Why Relationships End, Research Method)

AIM:
To investigate whether communication patterns and emotional expression are related to relationship satisfaction and stability in romantic couples.

METHOD:
Correlational study

• Survey method (questionnaires)

• Self-report data

• Cross-sectional design

PROCEDURE:

• Romantic couples completed questionnaires measuring:

  • communication style (positive vs negative communication)

  • emotional expression (ability to express feelings openly)

  • relationship satisfaction

  • relationship stability/commitment

• Researchers analysed correlations between these variables

RESULTS:
Couples with positive communication patterns reported:

• higher relationship satisfaction

• stronger commitment

• Couples with poor or avoidant communication showed:

  • lower satisfaction

  • higher likelihood of relationship problems

• Emotional expressiveness was strongly linked to relationship quality

CONCLUSION:
Communication quality is strongly linked to relationship success

• Emotional expression and openness improve relationship satisfaction

• Poor communication is associated with relationship dissatisfaction and instability

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• High ecological validity (real couples in real relationships)

• Identifies clear links between communication and satisfaction

• Easy to apply in real-world settings

Limitations

• Correlational → cannot establish cause and effect

• Self-report data → social desirability bias

• Cross-sectional design → no information on long-term change

• Cultural differences in communication style not fully considered

Piaget 1952 (Cognitive Development)

AIM:
To investigate how children’s thinking develops over time, and to explain cognitive development as a stage-based process.

METHOD:
Clinical interview method

• Naturalistic observation

• Qualitative approach

• Based on Piaget’s observations of children (including his own children)

PROCEDURE:

• Piaget studied children’s thinking by:

  • asking them questions during problem-solving tasks

  • observing how they explained their reasoning

• He used tasks involving:

  • logic and conservation (e.g. liquid, number, mass)

  • classification and categorisation

  • perspective-taking (egocentrism tasks like the “three mountains” task)

• Children’s responses were analysed for patterns in thinking ability

RESULTS:
Piaget identified four stages of cognitive development:

1. Sensorimotor (0–2 years)

   • learning through senses and movement

   • develops object permanence

2. Preoperational (2–7 years)

   • egocentric thinking

   • lack of conservation and logical reasoning

3. Concrete operational (7–11 years)

   • logical thinking about concrete objects

   • understands conservation

4. Formal operational (11+ years)

   • abstract and hypothetical thinking

   • scientific reasoning develops

CONCLUSION:
Cognitive development occurs in fixed, universal stages

• Children are active learners who construct knowledge through interaction with the environment

• Thinking becomes more logical and abstract over time

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Highly influential theory in developmental psychology

• Strong practical applications (education systems, curriculum design)

• Highlights active role of child in learning

Limitations

• Small, unrepresentative sample (mostly Piaget’s own children)

• Cultural bias (Western focus)

• Lacks strong experimental control (more observational)

Vygotsky 1978 (Cognition Development)

AIM:
To explain how cognitive development is shaped by social interaction and culture, and how learning occurs through collaboration with others.

METHOD:
Theoretical framework (social development theory)

• Based on observational and cultural studies of children

• Supported by educational research and classroom observations

PROCEDURE:

• Vygotsky proposed that cognitive development is driven by social interaction, especially through language.

  Key concepts:

  • More Knowledgeable Other (MKO):
    A person with greater skill/knowledge (teacher, parent, peer)

  • Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):
    The gap between:

    • what a child can do alone

    • what they can do with help

  • Scaffolding:
    Temporary support provided by MKOs that is gradually removed as the learner becomes independent

  • Private speech:
    Talking to oneself to guide thinking and problem-solving

RESULTS:
Children learn more effectively when guided by others

• Cognitive skills develop through:

  • language interaction

  • social collaboration

• Learning leads development (not the other way around)

CONCLUSION:
Cognitive development is socially constructed

• Culture and language play a central role in shaping thinking

• Learning occurs first socially, then individually (internalisation)

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Strong educational applications (teaching, scaffolding strategies)

• Emphasises role of culture and language in development

• Explains learning differences across cultures

Limitations

• Less focus on biological factors than Piaget

• Vague definitions of concepts like ZPD

• Limited experimental evidence compared to Piaget
  

Draganski et al 2004 (Brain Development, Neuroplasticity)

AIM:
To investigate whether learning a new skill causes structural changes in the brain, specifically in areas related to motor learning.

METHOD:
Longitudinal natural experiment

• MRI brain imaging study

• Repeated measures design

PROCEDURE:

• Participants (non-jugglers) were scanned using MRI at three points:

  1. Before learning juggling

  2. After learning to juggle for 3 months

  3. After 3 months without practice (to see if changes remained)

• Participants were trained to learn a new motor skill (juggling)

• Brain scans focused on areas involved in visual and motor coordination

RESULTS:
After learning juggling:

• increased grey matter in the mid-temporal area (visual motion processing region)

• After stopping practice:

  • some of the brain changes reduced but did not completely disappear

• Non-juggling control group showed no significant changes

CONCLUSION:
The brain is plastic and changes structurally with experience

• Learning a new skill can lead to measurable changes in brain structure

• Supports the concept of neuroplasticity

EVALUATION:
Strengths

• Objective brain imaging (MRI scans) → highly reliable

• Longitudinal design shows change over time

• Clear cause-and-effect relationship (learning → brain change)

Limitations

• Small sample size → limited generalisability

• Other lifestyle factors not fully controlled

• Short follow-up period (long-term permanence unclear)