Discuss the formation of personal relationships.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the formation of personal relationships.

Candidates may refer to issues including, but not limited to:

• explanations of formation of personal relationships (learning, cognitive, evolutionary, economic, cultural)
• studies on formation of personal relationships
• research methods investigating the formation of personal relationship
• factors influencing the formation of personal relationship
• gender/cultural differences related to formation of personal relationships
• attraction and/or liking can also be addressed as long they are tied to formation of relationships.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Flora and Segrin’s (2003) study on the perception of the relationship in married and dating couples
• Wedekind’s (1995) experiment on mate preference based on genetic makeup
• Fisher et al.’s (2005) fMRI investigation into neural mechanisms of mate choice
• Johnston et al.’s (2001) experiments investigating the importance of a woman’s hormonal state on the attractiveness of men’s faces
• Buss et al.’s (1989) cross-cultural study on factors in attraction
• Morry’s (2005) investigation into the attraction-similarity hypothesis
• Gupta and Singh’s (1982) study using interviews on arranged marriages in Indian couples.

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological and ethical considerations related to the research into the formation of personal relationships
• cultural and gender considerations
• how the findings of research have been interpreted and applied
• implications of the findings
• assumptions and biases
• areas of uncertainty
• supporting and/or contradictory evidence
• alternative explanations.

This was a popular choice. Candidates generally did a good job addressing this question and in the majority of cases managed to provide one or more explanations of the formation of personal relationships. Evidence of critical thinking was offered by either addressing cultural or gender considerations or by suggesting alternative explanations. Some candidates wrongly chose to write about how relationships change or end with long descriptions of the four horsemen of the apocalypse — this approach failed to gain many marks.