Model Answer (DP IB Psychology)

Model exam response 

Commentary per paragraph

Biological explanations of relationship formation assume that internal physiological factors determine who people are attracted to and why. Sociocultural explanations of relationship formation assume that relationships are formed due to external factors. The neurochemical explanation of attraction will be contrasted with proximity theory, using research by Fisher et al. (2005) and Festinger et al. (1950) to highlight key differences between the two theories. Issues such as reductionism and determinism will be used as key evaluation points demonstrating how the two theories differ.

The wording of the exam question is used which shows Focus on the question. There is a brief outline of each explanation which shows Knowledge & Understanding. The command term is referred to explicitly which tells the examiner that the student has understood what is required of them (Focus). Relevant Research is cited so that the examiner knows what to expect in the essay plus the student has identified some key points of contrast (Focus; Knowledge & Understanding). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

A neurochemical explanation of attraction takes as its basis the idea that neurotransmitters (in this case dopamine) are responsible for an individual experiencing feelings of ‘being in love’. In this way the theory posits that love produces craving for the other person just as a cocaine addict will crave their drug of choice. The role of dopamine in this process is key i.e. it reinforces behaviours that are pleasurable. A very different explanation of relationship formation is presented by proximity theory. Proximity considers the role of the environment in determining relationship formation rather than looking to the effect of neurotransmitters i.e. people form relationships with those who live or work nearby.

Both explanations are explained (Focus) with some detail supplied (Knowledge & Understanding). The command term is referred to directly e.g. ‘A very different explanation’...(Focus). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

One study which takes a biological approach to explaining relationship formation is Fisher et al. (2005). This study used a small sample of students who professed to be ‘in love’ and scanned their brains using fMRI to detect changes in oxygenated blood when viewing a photo of their loved one compared to a photo of an acquaintance. Fisher found that brain activity in key dopaminergic areas such as the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens increased when the loved one’s photo was viewed, citing this as evidence of ‘craving’ for the loved one. Contrastingly, Festinger et al. (1950) used observations of and interviews with students at M.I.T. college who lived in rooms on 17 of the blocks on campus in their study of proximity as an explanation of relationship formation. Festinger found that over time 65% of the participant friendship pairs lived in the same building with 44% living next door to each other. Festinger concluded that proximity was a key factor in relationship formation.

The use of Research to provide points of contrast. Study detail is used (Knowledge & Understanding). Critical Thinking is used to develop key evaluation issues and points of contrast. The command term is explicitly addressed (Focus). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

Festinger’s research is high in ecological validity: it was conducted in real time, over several months and it looked at actual behaviour rather than manipulating any variables. Fisher’s fMRI research, however, was a snapshot study which obtained data from one session using clinical methodology. Fisher et al. (2005) does not consider the wider context in which romantic relationships operate which makes it reductionist. Additionally, their findings may be based on other factors e.g. excitement/nervousness at being in an fMRI machine which means that the oxygenated blood measured in the study may not have been the product of a dopamine-fuelled feeling of craving for their loved one.

The use of Research to expand on and support points of contrast. Study detail is used (Knowledge & Understanding). Critical Thinking is used to explore issues of validity in each study. The command term is explicitly addressed (Focus). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

Another point of contrast between the two studies is that Festinger et al. (1950) could be accused of being overly deterministic in its assertion that proximity will result in relationship formation. Such a claim ignores the idea that not everyone will become friends with their nearest neighbours nor will each friendship based on convenience ‘go the distance’ (there was no follow-up study to check if the friendships formed lasted much beyond the period of the research). Fisher et al.’s research is not deterministic in that the focus is on the neurochemical activity of love in that particular moment; it does not claim to predict the future of each relationship.

The essay considers another key point of contrast between the theories (Critical Thinking) which also includes wider Knowledge & Understanding of the topic. The command term is explicitly addressed (Focus). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

To conclude, a biological explanation of relationship formation may be reductionist and a sociocultural explanation may be deterministic. Both theories are valid to some extent however each of them can only go so far as to provide a rounded and convincing account of how human relationships develop. For example, it is biological ‘cravings’ that bring feelings of romantic love but it is the practicality of living close to your loved one that will keep the relationship going. A combination of both theories might go some way towards providing a more satisfying explanation of relationship formation.   

677 words

The essay comes to a conclusion, reflecting on what has been covered and returning to the demands of the question (Focus). Critical Thinking notes that each explanation is limited and points out that a combination of both may be better suited to explaining relationship formation. The command term is explicitly addressed (Focus). The paragraph is clear, coherent and grammatical (Clarity & Organisation) with effective use of terminology.

Why would an examiner give this model answer top marks?

• It is fully focused on the question at all times

• It does not go ‘off on a tangent’ by including off-topic, irrelevant or superfluous detail

• It is concise, there is no ‘waffle’ and it uses key terminology throughout

• Research is used in a way which adds value to the response i.e. it is not a ‘shopping list’ of ‘everything I know about this topic/theory/study’ (what some teachers call a ‘knowledge vomit’, sorry for the gross imagery)

• It picks key critical thinking/evaluation points

• Critical thinking is not simply an evaluation of research, it is an appraisal of the question as a whole

• Each paragraph is composed of a topic sentence which is then expanded on, with examples