smc-5507-20-Family influence

HMS, HIC 2018 HSC 28a

Explain how the changes that have occurred in the lives of young pee over recent generations have influenced their health status. (8 marks)

--- 24 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

Technology changes have significantly influenced young people’s health status because digital devices now dominate daily activities. This occurs because social media and gaming create sedentary lifestyles that reduce physical activity levels. For example, young people spend hours on smartphones and computers instead of participating in outdoor sports. This leads to increased rates of obesity and decreased cardiovascular fitness. Additionally, excessive screen time causes disrupted sleep patterns and eye strain. The reason for this is blue light exposure interferes with natural circadian rhythms.
Social and family structure changes have affected mental health outcomes because modern family dynamics differ from previous generations. This happens when both parents work full-time, reducing family interaction time. For instance, many young people experience increased independence but less emotional support at home. Consequently, this creates higher anxiety levels and feelings of isolation. Furthermore, social media comparison results in body image concerns and self-esteem issues that were less prevalent in earlier generations.
Economic pressures have influenced health behaviours because the cost of living has increased substantially. This process ensures that many young people work part-time jobs while studying. For example, students often choose cheap, processed foods over nutritious meals due to time and financial constraints. Therefore, this generates poor dietary habits and nutritional deficiencies that affect physical development and academic performance.

Show Worked Solution

Technology changes have significantly influenced young people’s health status because digital devices now dominate daily activities. This occurs because social media and gaming create sedentary lifestyles that reduce physical activity levels. For example, young people spend hours on smartphones and computers instead of participating in outdoor sports. This leads to increased rates of obesity and decreased cardiovascular fitness. Additionally, excessive screen time causes disrupted sleep patterns and eye strain. The reason for this is blue light exposure interferes with natural circadian rhythms.
Social and family structure changes have affected mental health outcomes because modern family dynamics differ from previous generations. This happens when both parents work full-time, reducing family interaction time. For instance, many young people experience increased independence but less emotional support at home. Consequently, this creates higher anxiety levels and feelings of isolation. Furthermore, social media comparison results in body image concerns and self-esteem issues that were less prevalent in earlier generations.
Economic pressures have influenced health behaviours because the cost of living has increased substantially. This process ensures that many young people work part-time jobs while studying. For example, students often choose cheap, processed foods over nutritious meals due to time and financial constraints. Therefore, this generates poor dietary habits and nutritional deficiencies that affect physical development and academic performance.

♦♦ Mean mark 53%.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 71

Explain how both family relationships and peer interactions influence adolescent development during the identity formation stage. (5 marks)

--- 15 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

Family relationships provide the foundation for identity development during adolescence (typically ages 12-18) through:

Emotional and physical security that allows adolescents to take risks in identity exploration.
Parenting styles that balance support with appropriate autonomy.
Transmission of initial values and beliefs that form the basis for self-concept.

Peer interactions shape identity formation through:

Social comparison processes that help refine self-perception.
Opportunities to experiment with different social roles and behaviours.
Feedback on identity choices through acceptance or rejection.

The dynamic interplay between these influences creates:

Different contexts for identity exploration.
Sometimes conflicting messages that adolescents must reconcile.
A balanced identity that integrates values from both family and peer spheres.

Show Worked Solution

*PEEL – Solution is structured using an adjusted PEEL method to show cause and effect: [P] State the cause/factor [E] Show how it causes the effect [Ev] Evidence demonstrating why/how [L] Reinforce the causal relationship.

**Language highlighting the cause-effect relationship is bolded in the answer below.

[P] Family provides emotional security for identity exploration.
[E] This enables adolescents to take risks and try new identities.
[Ev] This happens when supportive parents allow teenagers to try new interests like joining drama clubs or make new friend groups without fear of rejection.
[L] This shows a clear connection between family stability and confident self-discovery.
[P] Peer feedback shapes self-perception.
[E] This causes adolescents to modify behaviours for acceptance.
[Ev] As a result, teenagers adopt clothing styles or music preferences matching their friend group to help them belong.
[L] This demonstrates why peer approval directly influences identity choices during adolescence.
[P] Conflicting family-peer values create identity tension.
[E] This leads to adolescents developing independent thinking skills.
[Ev] This occurs because teenagers must choose between parents’ expectations and friends’ social priorities, which helps form lasting personal values.
[L] These elements work together to produce unique identities balancing both influences through individual decision-making.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 059

Evaluate the extent to which global sporting events influence the physical activity levels and health of young Australians. (8 marks)

--- 22 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

Evaluation Statement

Global sporting events prove partially effective in increasing young Australians’ physical activity levels.
This evaluation examines immediate participation impacts and long-term behaviour change sustainability.

Immediate Participation Impact

Major sporting events adequately fulfil short-term motivation needs for youth activity.
Evidence supporting this includes 30% increases in junior sport registrations following Olympics and World Cups.
A critical strength is diverse sport exposure – young people discover activities like archery or skateboarding through global competitions.
Community sporting clubs report membership surges lasting 3-6 months post-events.
While strong in generating initial enthusiasm, it shows limitations in converting interest to lasting habits as most new participants drop out within one year.

Long-Term Behaviour Change

International competitions fail to achieve sustained physical activity improvements among youth.
The evidence indicates that inspiration from events rarely translates to permanent lifestyle changes.
Although effective for creating temporary motivation, it proves insufficient for addressing underlying barriers like cost and accessibility.
Better outcomes require ongoing local programs, not periodic global events. Research shows 80% return to pre-event activity levels within 12 months.

Final Evaluation

Weighing these factors shows global events create limited lasting impact on youth health.
The weaknesses outweigh strengths because temporary inspiration cannot overcome systematic barriers to participation.
The overall evaluation demonstrates need for consistent local initiatives rather than relying on international events to motivate young people.
Sustainable youth activity should focus on well funded, year-round community programs, not occasional global sporting spectacles.

Show Worked Solution

Evaluation Statement

Global sporting events prove partially effective in increasing young Australians’ physical activity levels.
This evaluation examines immediate participation impacts and long-term behaviour change sustainability.

Immediate Participation Impact

Major sporting events adequately fulfil short-term motivation needs for youth activity.
Evidence supporting this includes 30% increases in junior sport registrations following Olympics and World Cups.
A critical strength is diverse sport exposure – young people discover activities like archery or skateboarding through global competitions.
Community sporting clubs report membership surges lasting 3-6 months post-events.
While strong in generating initial enthusiasm, it shows limitations in converting interest to lasting habits as most new participants drop out within one year.

Long-Term Behaviour Change

International competitions fail to achieve sustained physical activity improvements among youth.
The evidence indicates that inspiration from events rarely translates to permanent lifestyle changes.
Although effective for creating temporary motivation, it proves insufficient for addressing underlying barriers like cost and accessibility.
Better outcomes require ongoing local programs, not periodic global events. Research shows 80% return to pre-event activity levels within 12 months.

Final Evaluation

Weighing these factors shows global events create limited lasting impact on youth health.
The weaknesses outweigh strengths because temporary inspiration cannot overcome systematic barriers to participation.
The overall evaluation demonstrates need for consistent local initiatives rather than relying on international events to motivate young people.
Sustainable youth activity should focus on well funded, year-round community programs, not occasional global sporting spectacles.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 056

Evaluate the extent to which family influence serves as both a risk and protective factor for young people's health today compared to previous generations. (8 marks)

--- 22 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

Evaluation Statement

Family influence proves highly significant as both a risk factor and protective factor for youth health across generations.
This evaluation examines how families pass on both healthy habits and harmful behaviours.

Protective Health

Parents effectively teach healthy habits through their own actions.
Evidence supporting this includes declining youth smoking rates matching reduced parental smoking over 30 years.
A critical strength is parents’ improved health literacy creating better role models than previous generations. Today’s parents demonstrate superior nutrition knowledge and exercise habits.
While strong in physical health modelling, parents exhibit limitations in digital wellbeing guidance where they lack expertise.
Although effective for traditional health behaviours, they prove less suitable for modern challenges like social media management.

Harmful Patterns

Family dysfunction fails to achieve healthy environments for vulnerable youth.
For example, evidence indicates that exposure to domestic violence doubles young people’s risk of perpetrating abuse.
Intergenerational trauma patterns persist despite increased awareness and support services. Research shows a majority of young people from abusive homes will develop mental health issues.
Family violence rates remain consistent across generations, demonstrating insufficient progress.
This reveals comprehensive failure in breaking destructive cycles affecting youth wellbeing.

Final Evaluation

Weighing these factors shows family influence remains equally powerful across generations as both protector and risk creator.
The overall evaluation demonstrates families’ dual capacity hasn’t fundamentally changed despite societal evolution.
Modern families face new challenges but core influence mechanisms persist.
Implications suggest targeted family support programs are essential for maximising protective factors while minimising risks.

Show Worked Solution

Evaluation Statement

Family influence proves highly significant as both a risk factor and protective factor for youth health across generations.
This evaluation examines how families pass on both healthy habits and harmful behaviours.

Protective Health

Parents effectively teach healthy habits through their own actions.
Evidence supporting this includes declining youth smoking rates matching reduced parental smoking over 30 years.
A critical strength is parents’ improved health literacy creating better role models than previous generations. Today’s parents demonstrate superior nutrition knowledge and exercise habits.
While strong in physical health modelling, parents exhibit limitations in digital wellbeing guidance where they lack expertise.
Although effective for traditional health behaviours, they prove less suitable for modern challenges like social media management.

Harmful Patterns

Family dysfunction fails to achieve healthy environments for vulnerable youth.
For example, evidence indicates that exposure to domestic violence doubles young people’s risk of perpetrating abuse.
Intergenerational trauma patterns persist despite increased awareness and support services. Research shows a majority of young people from abusive homes will develop mental health issues.
Family violence rates remain consistent across generations, demonstrating insufficient progress.
This reveals comprehensive failure in breaking destructive cycles affecting youth wellbeing.

Final Evaluation

Weighing these factors shows family influence remains equally powerful across generations as both protector and risk creator.
The overall evaluation demonstrates families’ dual capacity hasn’t fundamentally changed despite societal evolution.
Modern families face new challenges but core influence mechanisms persist.
Implications suggest targeted family support programs are essential for maximising protective factors while minimising risks.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 055

Analyse how changes in family structure over generations have affected the health and wellbeing of young people. (8 marks)

--- 22 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

*PEEL – Solution is structured using an adjusted PEEL method; [P] Identify components and their relationship, [E] explain the interaction/influence between them, [Ev] provide evidence showing the relationship in action, [L] linking sentence back to question.

[P] The shift from “nuclear” families to more diverse structures has had an effect on young people’s health choices.
[E] Different family structures come with different worldviews and this may entail conflicting health messages for young people.
[Ev] Young people in blended families can often receive different dietary rules from multiple households, causing confusion about healthy eating.
[L] This interaction demonstrates how structural diversity directly influences an individual’s health and their decision-making.
[P] Despite structural changes, good family communication is correlated to positive health outcomes.
[E] Young members of supportive families typically exhibit less risky behaviours no matter if their families are single-parent, blended, or traditional.
[Ev] For example, families with open communication significantly lower substance use across all family types, while poor communication doubles risky behaviours.
[L] These elements combine to produce health outcomes determined by relationship quality, not structure.
[P] Multigenerational living creates dual health impacts.
[E] On the positive side, this has improved young people’s access to health supervision and emotional support. However, on the negative side, intergenerational conflicts about health decisions and lifestyle choices can cause stress.
[Ev] This means that in practice, youth gain traditional health knowledge but can experience mental health challenges when grandparents oppose modern medical treatments.
[L] The broader impact shows intergenerational households influence both directly through care and indirectly through family tension.
[P] Parental supervision has become more complex with diverse family arrangements.
[E] The connection between multiple households and supervision can undermine the effective oversight of young people.
[Ev] Split families struggle coordinating aspects of home life like screen time limits, resulting in inconsistent health boundaries.
[L] Together, these factors increase the likelihood of unhealthy behaviours developing through supervision gaps.

Show Worked Solution

[P] The shift from “nuclear” families to more diverse structures has had an effect on young people’s health choices.
[E] Different family structures come with different worldviews and this may entail conflicting health messages for young people.
[Ev] Young people in blended families can often receive different dietary rules from multiple households, causing confusion about healthy eating.
[L] This interaction demonstrates how structural diversity directly influences an individual’s health and their decision-making.
[P] Despite structural changes, good family communication is correlated to positive health outcomes.
[E] Young members of supportive families typically exhibit less risky behaviours no matter if their families are single-parent, blended, or traditional.
[Ev] For example, families with open communication significantly lower substance use across all family types, while poor communication doubles risky behaviours.
[L] These elements combine to produce health outcomes determined by relationship quality, not structure.
[P] Multigenerational living creates dual health impacts.
[E] On the positive side, this has improved young people’s access to health supervision and emotional support. However, on the negative side, intergenerational conflicts about health decisions and lifestyle choices can cause stress.
[Ev] This means that in practice, youth gain traditional health knowledge but can experience mental health challenges when grandparents oppose modern medical treatments.
[L] The broader impact shows intergenerational households influence both directly through care and indirectly through family tension.
[P] Parental supervision has become more complex with diverse family arrangements.
[E] The connection between multiple households and supervision can undermine the effective oversight of young people.
[Ev] Split families struggle coordinating aspects of home life like screen time limits, resulting in inconsistent health boundaries.
[L] Together, these factors increase the likelihood of unhealthy behaviours developing through supervision gaps.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 045 MC

How do young people's opinions on core issues typically relate to their parents' opinions?

Young people consistently reject their parents' views on politics and religion.
Young people's opinions often reflect those of their parents on core issues.
The generation gap has eliminated any similarity in opinions between generations.
Young people form opinions independently of their family's influence.

Show Answers Only

\(B\)

Show Worked Solution

B is correct as research shows that young people’s opinions often reflect those of their parents on core issues.

Other options:

A is incorrect as young people’s opinions often reflect their parents’ views.
C is incorrect because it is an overstatement of the generation gap.
D is incorrect because research points to the family having significant influence on younger family members.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 044 MC

Which statement best describes the influence of family on young people's health across generations?

The family unit is no longer valued by today's young people.
Family influence is consistent across generations despite changing family structures.
Young people of previous generations valued family connections more highly.
Family connections no longer provide protective factors against health risks.

Show Answers Only

\(B\)

Show Worked Solution

B is correct because while family structures differ between generations, family connections remain important and influential.

Other options:

A is incorrect as research suggests the family unit is still valued by today’s young people.
C is incorrect as there is no evidence in the text that previous generations valued family more highly.
D is incorrect because connections made between family members provide a positive protective factor for various health risks.

HMS, HIC EQ-Bank 048

Discuss how family influence can both positively and negatively affect the mental health of young people. (5 marks)

--- 15 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---

Show Answers Only

*PEEL – Solution is structured using separate PEEL methods for each side of the argument; [P] Identify the point, [E] expand on the point with a link to question asked, [Ev] apply evidence/examples, [L] linking sentence back to question.*

[P] Family influence can positively affect young people’s mental health through supportive relationships.
[E] Close family bonds provide a protective factor that enhances resilience during stressful periods.
[E] For example, families that openly communicate about mental health issues normalise help-seeking which makes young people more likely to access support when needed.
[L] In this way, young people who feel connected to their families report better mental health outcomes and reduced rates of depression and anxiety.
[P] However, family influence can also negatively impact young people’s mental health in various ways.
[E] Dysfunctional family dynamics involving abuse or neglect can become significant risk factors for developing mental health conditions.
[E] For instance, children who grow up in homes with domestic violence may experience trauma that is not addressed and affects their long-term psychological wellbeing.
[L] Through these unfortunate circumstances, young people can develop both mental health issues and an inability to seek appropriate help.

Show Worked Solution

[P] Family influence can positively affect young people’s mental health through supportive relationships.
[E] Close family bonds provide a protective factor that enhances resilience during stressful periods.
[E] For example, families that openly communicate about mental health issues normalise help-seeking which makes young people more likely to access support when needed.
[L] In this way, young people who feel connected to their families report better mental health outcomes and reduced rates of depression and anxiety.
[P] However, family influence can also negatively impact young people’s mental health in various ways.
[E] Dysfunctional family dynamics involving abuse or neglect can become significant risk factors for developing mental health conditions.
[E] For instance, children who grow up in homes with domestic violence may experience trauma that is not addressed and affects their long-term psychological wellbeing.
[L] Through these unfortunate circumstances, young people can develop both mental health issues and an inability to seek appropriate help.