Discuss one cultural dimension of human behaviour.

Refer to the paper 1 section B 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 one cultural dimension of human behaviour.

Cultural dimensions may include, but are not limited to:

• individualism/collectivism (e.g. Berry and Katz,1967; Kulkofsky et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2001)
• power/distance (e.g. Zhang et al., 2010; Eylon and Au, 1999; Lynn et al., 1993)
• long-term/short-term orientation (Confucian dynamism) (e.g. Chen et al., 2005; Hofstede and Bond, 1988)
• masculinity/femininity (e.g. Vunderick and Hofstede, 1998)
• uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Shane, 1995).

Responses should present the core traits that define the chosen cultural dimension. For example, candidates may discuss that individualistic societies focus on uniqueness, achievement and freedom, whereas collectivistic societies focus on family, relationships and a common fate or heritage.

Candidates may address the chosen cultural dimension generally, for example, that it is the effect of a culture on the beliefs and values of a society, or in a more detailed manner with explanations based on social mobility, agricultural versus urban, democratic principles, economic stability, etc. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological related to the research into cultural dimensions
• 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.

If a candidate discusses more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first cultural dimension discussed.

SL:

Clear presentation of relevant research with an effort to link the results to the characteristics of the cultural dimension was a feature of higher-scoring responses, as was a well-developed and relevant evaluation of the research presented with a holistic discussion of the value of using dimensions to understand behaviour and an acknowledgment of the variation of behaviour within the dimension. The best answers described two or more studies in detail — Berry and Katz (1967) and Kulkofsky et al. (2011) proved very popular and strong responses clearly linked them to individualism/collectivism.

Weaker answers described all the cultural dimensions before developing one specific dimension. Some students also did not know the difference between a few of the dimensions and used studies incorrectly; using enculturation, acculturation or globalization research. These studies were not credited unless there was a very clear focus on a specific cultural dimension and specific behaviour(s).

The weakest responses were often entirely anecdotal, with no reference to psychological terminology or studies.

Overall the quality of responses was surprisingly poor to average with many responses using irrelevant research, research that was not well developed or relevant research but not explicitly linking the results to the characteristics of the dimension.

HL:

Stronger responses to this question were definitely in the minority but were able to explicitly address the key focus of the question which was a discussion of one cultural dimension of human behaviour. Such responses provided a detailed and accurate explanation of a relevant dimension, in most cases, individualism/collectivism. These stronger responses included relevant studies that were well described and explicitly linked to the specific dimension. This was accompanied by a well-developed and balanced discussion centred around how valuable the dimension was in furthering understanding of human behaviour. The strongest answers also described two or more studies in detail: Berry and Katz,1967 and Kulkofsky et al., 2011 proved very popular and these responses clearly linked them to individualism/collectivism.

Weaker responses rarely showed detailed knowledge of the chosen dimension but were characterized by limited theoretical understanding and limited explanation of the key features of the dimension. Although the majority of candidates could describe relevant studies, these were not always used effectively to link to the dimension. Providing a focused and well-developed discussion was a challenge for many candidates and critical thinking was often superficial and focused on evaluation of methodological issues in the studies. Some candidates also applied studies incorrectly; using enculturation, acculturation or globalization research. These studies were not credited unless there was a very clear focus on a specific cultural dimension and specific behaviour(s).