IB Psychology
  • IB Psychology
    • IB Psychology Products
    • IB Psychology Blog
  • Biological
  • Cognitive
  • Social
  • Abnormal
  • Relationships
  • Model Essay Answers
  • Research Methods
  • The IA
    • Ultimate Guide to the IA
  • Syllabus Guide
  • Command Terms
  • Textbooks and Resources

Don't Just Stand There, Do Something!

26/3/2014

Comments

 
A model ERQ answer on bystanderism
A model answer to an IB Psychology Human Relationships extended response question. For sure, the perfect answer to an IB Psychology extended response question is very difficult to write. Luckily for you, we here at IB Psychology specialise in helping teachers teach and students learn how to write these perfect answers.  To this end, we like to provide students and teachers of the course with plenty of exemplars they can be using in the Psychology classroom to demonstrate all of the requirements that a perfect answer needs to fulfill.

We know it's not easy, but on the up side, for each perfect answer you manage to produce, there is every chance that the IB Psychology exam will ask you the exact same question. So, if you produce enough model ERQ answers, practice and memorise them, you will astonish your IB examiners. This is how you get the IB Psychology 7.
Picture
Having a set of IB Psychology model answers will be worth all of the hard work that goes into preparing them.
 In this blog post we bring you the model ERQ answer to the IB Psychology learning outcome: Examine factors influencing bystanderism - in the Human Relationships option.

Examine factors influencing bystanderism

Picture
Bystanderism is the phenomenon of a person or people not intervening despite awareness of another person’s needs; i.e., an individual is less likely to help in an emergency situation when passive bystanders are present. It can cover a range of situations from being aware that a neighbour being physically abusive to his family but ignores it, walking past someone lying slumped on a pavement as the others preceding you have done, or ignoring the plight of a bullied child at school.

The back ground for research on bystanderism was the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City in 1964. She was attacked, raped and stabbed several times over a period of 30 minutes by a psychopath. Later a large number of witnesses that they had heard screaming or seen a man attacking the woman (38 later testified as having heard her screams), yet none of them had intervened or called the police until it was too late. Afterwards they said that they did not want to become involved or thought that someone else would intervene. Researchers here established a cognitive model to explain the decision an individual makes to act or not. One of the key conclusions they drew was that the number of bystanders present has an enormous influence on the likelihood that one of them will help.

This essay will address two theories regarding factors that influence bystanderism: the theory of the unresponsive bystander and the cost-reward model of helping, before examining the role of individual personality characteristics.
Picture
Figure 1: How the diffusion of responsibility model works
Picture
Remember - ALL model ERQs can be found here
Latane & Darley (1970) proposed the theory of the unresponsive bystander. According to the theory the presence of other people or just the perception that other people are witnessing the event will decrease the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency due to such psychological processes like:

  • Diffusion of responsibility: When you are the only person who can deal with an emergency situation, you have 100 per cent of the responsibility to do so (whether you actually choose to intervene or not). However, with more witnesses, each individual’s share of the responsibility drops (see figure 1) and this reduces the psychological costs of not intervening.
  • Social influence: It may be that in an ambiguous social situation, we look to the actions of others for guidance (social influence). This inaction breeds more inaction, in that if we see others not doing anything, we may feel that it is not necessary to do something. If we observe five people walking in front of us pass by a man slumped over on the pavement, then that may go some way to resolving in our own minds as to whether or not he really needs help. 
  • Audience inhibition: On the other hand, we may be afraid of appearing to overreact or of making some kind of social blunder (thus, audience inhibition). So, if individual bystanders are aware that other people are present they may be afraid that any action they take may be evaluated negatively. In terms of Latane & Darley’s model, this forms part of a person’s judgement about whether intervention is necessary or appropriate. Imagine the embarrassment of offering to help someone who does not need help.

Latane & Darley (1968) suggested a cognitive decision model. They argue that helping requires the bystander to:

  1. Notice the situation – if you are in a hurry to get somewhere you may not even be aware of what is going on).
  2. Interpret the situation as an emergency – for example, people screaming or asking for help which could also be interpreted as a family quarrel which is none of your business.
  3. Accept some personal responsibility for helping even though others are present.
  4. Consider how to help – although you may be unsure of what to do or doubt your skills.
  5. Decide how to help – you may observe how other people react and decide not to intervene.

At each of these stages, the bystander can make a decision to help or not.

Latane & Darley (1968) conducted an experiment to investigate bystander intervention and diffusion of responsibility.

Aim: To investigate if the number of witnesses of an emergency influences people’s helping in an emergency situation.

Procedure: As part of course credit, 72 students (59 female and 13 male) participated in the experiment. They were asked to discuss what kind of personal problems new college students could have in an urban area. Each participant sat alone in a booth with a pair of headphones and a microphone. They were told that the discussion took place via an intercom to protect the anonymity of participants. At one point in the experiment a participant (confederate) staged a seizure. The independent variable (IV) of the study was the number of persons (bystanders) that the participant thought listened to the same discussion. The dependent variable (DV) was the time it took for the participant to react from the start of the victim’s fit until the participant contacted the experimenter.

Results and conclusion: The number of bystanders had a major effect on the participant’s reaction. Of the participants in the alone condition, 85% went out and reported the seizure. Only 31% reported the seizure when they believed there were four bystanders. The gender of the bystander did not make a difference.

Ambiguity about a situation and thinking that other people might intervene (i.e., diffusion of responsibility) were factors that influenced bystanderism in this experiment.

During debriefing students answered a questionnaire with various items to describe their reactions to the experiment, for example “I did not know what to do” (18 out of 65 students selected this) or “I did not know exactly what was happening” (26 out of 65) or “I thought it must be some kind of fake” (20 out of 65).

Evaluation: There was participant bias (psychology students participating for course credits). Ecological validity is a concern due to the artificiality of the experimental situation (e.g., the laboratory situation and the fact that bystanders could only hear the victim and the other bystanders could add to the artificiality. Finally, there are ethical considerations in that participants were deceived and exposed to an anxiety-provoking situation.

Another theory about factors affecting bystanderism was developed by Pilliavin et al. (1969). This is the cost reward model of helping, and the theory stipulates that both cognitive (cost-benefit analysis) and emotional factors (unpleasant emotional arousal) determine whether bystanders to an emergency will intervene. The model focuses on egoistic motivation to escape an unpleasant emotional state (opposite of altruistic motivation). Empathy evokes altruistic motivation to reduce another person’s distress whereas personal distress evokes an egoistic motivation to reduce one’s own distress, or recognition that helping will produce a reward (e.g., strong feeling of virtuousness or social approval). The theory was suggested based on a field experiment in New York’s subway.

The subway Samaritan (Pilliavin, 1969)

Aim: The aim of this field experiment was to investigate the effect of various variables on helping behaviour.

Procedure: 
  • Teams of students worked together with a victim, a model helper, and observers. The IV has whether the victim was drunk or ill (carrying a cane), and black or white.
  • The group performed a scenario where the victim appeared drunk or a scenario where the victim appeared ill.
  • Participants were subway travellers who were observed when the ‘victim’ staged a collapse on the floor a short time after the train had left the station. The model helper was instructed to intervene after 70 seconds if no one else did.

Results and conclusion: The results showed that a person who appeared ill was more likely to receive help than one who appeared drunk. In 60% of the trials where the victim received help more than one person offered assistance. The researcher did not find support for diffusion of responsibility. They argue that this could be because the observers could clearly see the victim and decide whether or not there was an emergency situation. Pilliavin et al. found no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and the speed of helping, which is contrary to the theory of the unresponsive bystander.

Evaluation: This study has higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments and it resulted in a theoretical explanation of factors influencing bystanderism. Based on this study the researchers suggested that the cost-reward model of helping involves observation of an emergency situation that leads to an emotional arousal and an interpretation of that arousal (e.g., empathy, disgust, fear) this serves as a motivation to either help of not, based on an evaluation of costs and rewards of helping:

  • Costs of helping (e.g., effort, embarrassment, physical harm)
  • Costs of not helping (e.g., self-blame and blame from others)
  • Rewards of helping (e.g., praise from the victim and self)
  • Rewards of not helping (e.g., being able to continue doing whatever one was doing.

Evaluation of the model: The model assumes that bystanders make a rational cost-benefit analysis rather than acting intuitively and on impulse. It also assumes that people only help for egoistic reasons, which is probably not true. Most of the research on bystanderism is conducted as laboratory or field experiments but findings have been applied to explain real-life situations.

Another key point to consider when examining factors that influence bystanderism that neither the theory of the unresponsive bystander or the cost reward model of helping takes into consideration, is that there is significant individual variance that cannot be wholly attributable to the situation. Dispositional or personality characteristics are important in determining whether someone will help or not in an emergency situation. 

There is evidence that dispositional factors and personal norms are influential in determining the likelihood of bystanderism in an individual. Oliner & Oliner (1988) examined dispositional factors and personal norms in helping in an emergency situation, in this case, the Holocaust. The Holocaust was an exceptional life threatening emergency situation for the European Jews. Witnesses to the deportation of Jews all over Europe reacted in different ways. Some approved of the anti-Semitic policies, many were bystanders and a few risked their own life to save Jews. Within the context of the Second World War, saving Jews was a risky behaviour because it was illegal in many countries and the Jews were socially marginalised (pariahs). Despite this, some people decided to help (act altruistically). Heroic helpers such as those who saved Jews under the Holocaust (e.g., Oscar Schindler of ‘Schindler’s List fame) may have strong personal norms. Those that risk their lives to help others in situations like the Holocaust often deviate radically from the norms of their society.

Oliner & Oliner (1988) examined the role of dispositional factors and personal norms in helping. These researchers interviewed 231 Europeans who had participated in saving Jews in Nazi Europe and 126 other similar people who did not rescue Jews. Of the rescuers, 67% had been asked to help, either by a victim or by someone else. One they had agreed to help they responded positively to subsequent requests.

Results showed that rescuers shared personality characteristics and expressed greater pity or empathy compared to non-rescuers. Rescuers were more likely to be guided by personal norms (high ethical values, belief in equity, and perception of people as equal). Rescuers often said that parental behaviour had made an important contribution to the rescuer’s personal norms. For example, the parents of rescuers had few negative stereotypes of Jews compared to non-rescuers. The family of rescuers also tended to believe in the universal similarity of all people.

Other factors such as similarity, victim attributes, responsibility, mood, competence and experience can also influence the degree of bystandersim in any person or emergency situation. These factors are not considered in the two models examined here, but have been shown to of some importance.

General conclusion

Both the theory of the unresponsive bystander and the cost-reward model of helping are cognitive models of decision making where individuals weigh up several factors regarding the emergency situation, consciously or unconsciously, before making their decision to help or not. Both of these models have good predictive power as to how people will behave in real life emergency situations; however each does have its own limitations. Neither of these models takes into account the influence of personality factors, which may be of considerable influence in bystanderism.

Word count: 2 000

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Model IB Psychology  ERQ Answer

Comments

Sweaty Opposites

18/3/2014

Comments

 
Your sweat reveals the sweet smells of attraction!
IB Psychology asks interesting questions about the biological origins of attraction in the Human Relationships option; for example: To what extent do biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors influence human relationships?

Way back in the days before I even knew IB Psychology existed I was at university studying Psychology when a friend of mine became interested in the recently published Wedekind et al. study (AKA – The Sweaty T-Shirt Experiment). With a little help from some friends studying microbiology we were able to get some genetic testing done and reproduce an experiment that everyone was talking about. I was to become the guinea pig.

Beauty may not be so much as in the eye of the beholder, but in the nose. Both men and women want to make healthy babies, and that means babies with a robust immune system that fights off disease. Each of us passes on some of our ability to fight disease to our children in our genes and our instincts prime us to choose a mate with an immune system very different to our own. Why? Because that way our children get the best chance of fighting illness. When it comes to these genes opposites attract.

We tried putting these instincts to the test in our university laboratory. Six women and I needed to have our blood tested for 6 genes to reveal what type of immune system we had. If all 6 of my genes match all 6 of a woman’s, that’s bad. I should find her smell unappealing because our children are likely to be less healthy. But if only one or two genes match, that’s good. I should find her smell attractive because it would mean our children would be naturally healthier.

I was to sniff t-shirts worn by each of the 6 women. Each woman had slept in a t-shirt over two nights so it should have been really smelly. The t-shirts were put in a sealed bag and kept in the freezer.  We 'scientists' then placed the t-shirts in a jar and next we got sniffy.

On the day, and in the lab I was told that what I was about to be given the t-shirts the 6 women had been wearing. I’m finding it very difficult to believe that this is going to work but I’ll definitely going to try it. Each jar is unsealed in turn and I’m to sniff the t-shirt in it, by taking deep inhalations from the t-shirt jars simply labeled A-F. I start with Jar A and take a deep sniff. I find it to be not nearly as bad as I had expected it to be. Jar B I don’t like quite so much so I place it further down the line than Jar A. I keep going with the jars. Some are definitely smellier than others. Some are not bad. At the end I have 6 jars lined up with the most attractive smells being on the left. Now we want to know if they’re the most genetically different. 

Picture

A reenactment of the sweaty t-shirt study 

The biological origins of attraction
My scientist friend pulls off the A-F labels revealing each t-shirts’ score out of 6. The higher the score, the greater the number of different immune system genes the woman who was wearing that t-shirt has. According to the science behind this, my jars should be ordered with my most attractive smells having the highest numbers and the least attractive smells having the lowest numbers.

What do we find? From left to right, my most attractive to least attractive, the numbers were: 4/6, 5/6, 4/6, 1/6, 0/6, 0/6. I was skeptical to begin with, but this was an almost perfect match to the experimental hypothesis. It was exactly what the science predicted. My top three t-shirts had the stale whiff of different immune system markers and in my least attractive t-shirts I could somehow recognise the reek of my own immune system genes. It appears that opposites really do attract.

Download and read the study below. You can use it in the IB Psychology learning outcome: Evaluate psychological research (that is, theories and/or studies) relevant to the study of human relationships.

Picture

The infamous sweaty t-shirt study
Wedekind (1995) PDF download
Picture
Her sweat will provide clues to her immune system that we can smell

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Structure, Order, Routine.

10/3/2014

Comments

 
The totalitarian classroom
This post explores the 'totalitarian approach' to achieving the prefect IB Psychology exam answer. There are no surprises in the IB Psychology examinations. Each learning outcome has an equal chance of being assessed in the exam. Each learning outcome is either an exact or near match to the examination question.

In our classroom, each learning outcome we explore is always followed by preparing a model answer which can then be memorised for class assessments, mocks and actual IB Psychology exams. And voilĂ , great answers can be easily written in exams. This is the secret to success in IB Psychology - prepare great model answers and then memorise these for exams.

Sounds easy? It's not quite rocket science, but it's certainly not a walk in the park. Two things need to be in place:
  1. Knowledge. Student's need to know how to write a perfect SAQ and ERQ. They need to practice writing these. And they need access to good feedback from the IB Psychology teacher in order to make incremental improvements in the quality of the model answers they produce.
  2. Time. It is hopeless to try and prepare models answers three weeks before examinations. Prepare each answer in response to the learning outcome being studied at that time. Spend revision time memorising these, not doing the hard work which needs to have been previously completed.
Picture
She should have listened to her Psychology teacher
Structure. Order. Routine. These are the keys to having the knowledge and time requirements under Control. Thus, the totalitarian approach to achieving the prefect IB Psychology exam answer is very effective.

Time: Plan for incorporating this model answer preparation time into your teaching schemes. Insist that these are completed to the very highest standards (i.e., have the very highest expectations of your students). Allow them some class time to ask questions of you as they complete a perfect answer to each short answer or extended response question.

Knowledge: The IB psychology examiners are looking for certain requirements to be met (command terms, knowledge, definitions, research studies, critical thinking and organisation, etc.). They are looking for these same requirements across any SAQ or ERQ. The mark level descriptors for all SAQ questions are the same. The mark level descriptors for all ERQ questions are the same.
Picture
Drilling my Psychology students
Using a template to enable students to think about what they need to include in their responses and how they need to structure these is a great idea. They will soon be in the habit of planning their answers, and knowing how their planning is directly relevant to achieving a great mark. 
Picture
You won't be able to fool the IB Psychology examiner
I use the two templates below in my Psychology classroom. I set up the first ERQ and SAQ templates for my students to give them an idea of what I expect. After that they're on their own - they will need to complete their own templates for each answer they are preparing.

In fact, I believe that this skill is so important to success in IB Psychology that I refuse to mark an answer without a well completed template attached. I bounce them straight back with a zero attached. Nazi!
ERQ answer template - PDF
SAQ Answer Template - PDF
Feel free to use these templates in your own classroom, or students, for preparing your own model answers.

ERQ Model Answer Template

SAQ MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATE

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Short. Sharp. Sweet.

5/3/2014

Comments

 
Psychological science tells us what we already know.
From the treasure trove of Psychological studies, we here at IB Psychology delve into our basket of goodies to bring you a lot of stuff you no doubt already know:
  • We judge naked people as having less self-control.
  • Pain is felt intensely when it's intentionally inflicted.
  • Relationships are more exciting when they're secret.
  • Trying too hard at something can make us rubbish at it.
Picture
Tell me something I don't already know

Pervy
This may make you think differently about those photos you've been posting to Facebook. 

Seeing someone without their clothes my not cause us to objectify them, but we certainly start to think differently about them. Participants were shown pictures of the same target individuals who were either shown wearing clothes, topless or, ahem, wearing just a smile.

Unsurprisingly, naked individuals were perceived as having less control over themselves and also as having more access to 'experience'. When pictured clothed, the same individuals were rated as being more 'capable' and 'competent'. 

Ecological validity? Probably pretty good. If I was walking through my university and just happened perchance (no way was I hiding up the tree!) to see a drunken, naked frat run. That is exactly what I would be thinking - not very competent but much more open to experience.
Picture
Shirt on: More competent and capable.
Picture
Shirt off: Having less control.

Secret spice
We all love a secret. Secrets can be endlessly obsessed over. Those with whom we share secrets seem more exciting and we feel that we have a much closer bond. Secretly playing footsie under a table at an experimenter's behest makes us rate our experimental partner as being much more attractive, than when this footsie was carried out openly.
Picture
The best IB Psychology IA experiment to replicate, ever?

Performance anxiety
Have you ever been involved in close golf game with a friend where maybe a $20 is on the line? It's the 18th hole, scores are tied and you've both reached the green on the same number of shots. This putt is important. You line up your shot thinking hard about angles and how much power to put into your shot. The $20 is there in your thoughts. The shot you now play is going to be the worst you've made all day. You choke. 

A few conditions in this experiment. Participants were explicitly told not to over hit the golf ball. In some instances while putting they were instructed to remember a six-figure number. And all putts took place in a darkened room where the putter either glowed in dark or didn't. A glow in the dark putter enabled participants to see it in their hands and actively self monitor their shots. 

Being told not to overshoot the hole led to way more holes being overshot. Keeping a six figure number in your head makes it worse. Being able to monitor your shot made it worse again. The moral of the story. Relax and enjoy your golf.
Relax and enjoy your golf to reduce your 20 handicap

This will hurt me more than it hurts you
Picture
Psychological and physical pain are intertwined. Some of that psychological pain can have a social component. When we believe others are intentionally harming us. It hurts more.

Comments

The Secret 7

2/3/2014

Comments

 
The insider's guide to achieving the elusive 7 in IB Psychology.
Less than four percent of IB Psychology higher level students will be awarded a grade of 7. In fact, only 3.75% of HL Psychology students in the May 2013 examinations were awarded that highest maximum possible mark.

Never fear, IB Psychology is here to help. Achieving the IB Psychology 7 is not exactly rocket science. A little known fact that teachers either don't know or don't choose to share with their students is that you know exactly how questions will be asked in the IB Psychology examinations in each and every paper - Paper 1, Paper 2 and Paper 3.

You can prepare perfect models answers: 8/8 for the three short answer questions ), and 22/22 for the extended response questions (ERQs). Practice these answers until you can reproduce them in exam conditions and you will find yourself walking into those exams with a head full of answers you can replicate across any of the questions being asked.

"You already know the questions for the IB examinations!", I hear you gasp. Yes, we know exactly which questions can be asked. We just don't know which of the possible selection will actually turn up in the exam on the day.

No other IB subject affords students and teachers this luxury ... shhhh! It's our little secret.
Picture

IB Psychology: We love you Number 7!

The IB Psychology Exam Questions are the Learning Outcomes

Picture
The IB Psychology Guide has all of the exam questions listed, topic by topic.
The IB Psychology Guide (the official IBO guide to the IB Psychology syllabus) lists all of the Learning Outcomes associated with each section of the course – the Levels of Analysis and the Options (and even the HL Qualitative Research Methodologies. These learning outcomes guide us as teachers as to what we need to be teaching our students. And, if you don’t for some reason or another, trust your IB Psychology teacher then you can monitor what should be being taught in the IB Psychology classroom.

What is great about the IB Psychology course is that the learning outcomes match the examination questions. For example, you are required in the Biological Level of Analysis to learn – With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour?

The November 2012 IB Psychology exam had the extended response question (i.e., the big 22 mark question that requires answering) – With reference to psychological research (theories and/or studies), to what extent does genetic inheritance influence behaviour? [22 marks]. We hope that you can see the pattern! 
IB Psychology exam questions closely match the learning outcomes in the course, so closely that they more often than not, appear word-for-word in the examinations. If not word-for-word, then they are very, very close matches. For example, again in the November 2012 examination the short answer question (8 marks) is asked at the Cognitive Level of Analysis: Explain how one biological factor may affect one cognitive process. [8 marks]. The corresponding learning outcome is: Explain how biological factors may affect one cognitive process (for example, Alzheimer’s disease, brain damage, sleep deprivation).

The clear links between the IB Psychology learning outcomes and the examination questions also applies to the Options. In May 2013 the learning outcome: Discuss the use of eclectic approaches to treatment, was slightly tweaked with the command term being changed to ‘Evaluate’: Evaluate the use of eclectic approaches to treatment. Clearly the strengths and limitations of an eclectic approach to treatment would be covered in a ‘Discuss’ learning outcome.

Do you need more convincing? Higher Level Paper 3, May 2013 again. The examination question: Explain two ethical considerations relevant to this study.  [10 marks], is taken directly from the learning outcome, Discuss ethical considerations in qualitative research.

You can prepare and memorise perfect model answers to the learning outcomes and then regurgitate them in exams. This is the Secret of the 7: Prepare and memorise model answers to the learning outcomes AND produce a great IA.

You have two years to do this. There can be no excuse for not having your model answers perfected, practiced and memorised after two whole years.

To further illustrate this point. The May 2013 IB Psychology examination questions – Papers 1, 2 and 3 – are listed below. Next to these are their associated learning outcomes. Judge for yourself the closeness of the match and how beneficial it would have been to have walked into these exams with answers prepared and memorised for the learning outcomes. We could have prepared tables for all of the IB Psychology examinations to further support this point, but we do have classes to teach and lesson to prepare!

All of the IB examination questions from the May 2013 exams are stated below. Next to them are the learning outcomes. 

Picture
Summary Notes PDF Download
Picture
Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

    IB DipLOMA PsychologY:

    The IB Psychology Blog. A place to share research and teaching and learning ideas for those studying and teaching Psychology for the IB Diploma Programme.

    Archives

    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014


    Categories

    All
    Abnormality
    Abnormal Psychology
    Antidepressants
    Anxiety Disorders
    Attraction
    Attributions
    Biological Level Of Analysis
    Biological Psychology
    BLOA
    Bystander Effect
    Bystanderism
    Classroom Experiments
    CLOA
    Cognition
    Cognitive Level Of Analysis
    Cognitive Psychology
    Command Terms
    Communication
    Decision Making
    Decision-making
    Depression
    Diagnosis
    Discrimination
    ERQ
    Errors In Attribution
    Essay Questions
    Ethics
    Evolutionary Psychology
    Examinations
    Exams
    Experiment
    Extended Response Question
    Getting A 7
    Getting An IB Psychology 7
    HL
    Human Relationships
    IA
    IB Psychology
    IB Psychology 7
    Learning Outcomes
    Long Answer Questions
    Mental Illness
    Model Answers
    Paper 1 Examinantion
    Paper 2 Examination
    Paper 3 Examination
    Paper 3 HL Exam
    Placebo
    QRM
    Qualitative Research Methods
    Realtionships
    Relationships
    Revision
    SAQ
    SCLOA
    Short Answer Questions
    SL
    Socio Cultural Psychology
    Socio-Cultural Psychology
    Stereotypes
    Study
    Syllabus
    Teaching
    Teaching Ideas
    Teaching Tips
    Treatment
    Treatment Of Depression

    RSS Feed

© Burton Inc. and VIBE Education Ltd.  2012-2021. All rights reserved.