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

The IB Psychology 7 - 5 Best tips

1/3/2015

Comments

 
Picture
5 simple strategies for sure success in your IB Psychology course. 
Here, I am sharing with you the best five strategies I have for achieving that very, very elusive IB Psychology 7. Remember, just three per cent of all Higher Level IB Psychology students achieve the maximum mark of 7.
TOP TIP ONE
The IB Psychology Paper 1 examination has three sections - DO NO study for two of these!
Choose one of either the IB Psychology Biological Level of Analysis, The Cognitive Level of Analysis or the Socio-Cultural Level of Analysis. Focus your study and preparation here and get really good at this one section. This section will bring you 30 marks out of a total 46. 

Our advice? Choose the IB Psychology Level of Analysis that your teacher begins with. This will maximise the amount of time you can spend learning this section.


TOP TIP TWO
Prepare and memorise model answers to ALL of the extended response questions.
The extended response questions are the the IB Pychology examination essay questions - i.e., the big 22 mark answers. Prepare perfect 22 mark answers across one of the Levels of Analysis, and across each of the IB Psychology options (e.g., Abnormal and Human Relationships).

In each option you will need to answer a single question. So for HL you will need to answer two 22 mark questions, one from each option. IN SL, just one 22 mark question from the single IB Psychology option you have studied.  Aim for maximum marks here. So that's 44/44 or 22/22.

TOP TIP THREE
Aim for maximum marks in your IB Psychology IA. 
Essentially, any additional mark you gain in the internal assessment component of the course, is an additional total mark you can add to your final IB Psychology score. Start early. Put lots of effort in. Listen to your teacher. Ask your teacher to read over lots of sections before submitting the final draft. Get lots of feedback so your final draft is as good as most students' final submissions.

TOP TIP FOUR
Do NOT ignore the Qualitative Research Methods component of the course, because your IB Psychology teacher almost certainly WILL!
It has long been identified that teachers neither spend enough time or go into this topic in enough depth. The majority of students do very poorly here, and as a result the grade boundaries in the HL Paper 3 examination are set incredibly low. Learn the content and learn to apply it to sample stimulus material.


TOP TIP FIVE
Forget about any of the short answer learning outcomes in the Options section of the IB Psychology course. 
Examiners can twist exam questions to fit these, but they usually don't. There are always straightforward back-up questions to fall back on. Save your time for memorising your model answers.
Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

IB Psychology has a range of resources specifically dedicated to helping the IB Psychology student achieve maximum marks in the course. Find them all on our products page.
Picture
Picture
Picture

Comments

I have a gut feeling about this one ...

31/1/2015

 
Feeling a little distressed? Socially anxious? 'Yogurt therapy' highlights the incredible link between your gut flora and mood.
Picture
We may have always intuitively understood the mind-stomach connection. Anxious? - butterflies in the stomach. Terrified? - Bring my brown pants. Disgust? - sick to he bottom of my stomach, and so on and such forth. Now some rather startling science is shedding some light onto this connection. 
We have previously looked at the dreaded swim test, every lab rat's worst nightmare. Here it is used again to shed some light on a few different questions posed in the IB Psychology syllabus, both in the biological Level of Analysis and the Abnormal Psychology option.

The IB Psychology Biological Level of Analysis (BLOA) learning outcome: Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the biological level of analysis (for example, experiments, observations, correlational studies). With the focus being a good experimental study. We can can also use it to address the IB Psychology Biological Level of Analysis (BLOA) learning outcome: Discuss two effects of the environment on physiological processes.

The hypothesis, good bacteria, in the right balance in the gut, will have positive effects on mental health - reducing stress and anxiety. To test this experimentally. Take two experimental groups of lab rats and manipulate an independent variable. One group is fed probiotics in their diet and the other a broth (a broth is cooked and thus has no bacteria, good or bad, present). 

Choose the dependent variable, how long rats will keep swimming in a standard water maze (safe haven platform removed!) before giving up and going into a 'dead float'. Now this isn't actually the rats dying, they're just giving up on finding a way out of their stressful environment. No rats were harmed in the making of this experiment. 

The results? Rats with a digestive system loaded with good bacteria did not give up. They continued to explore their environment looking for a way out until the experimenters took pity on them, lifted them out and gave them a fluffy towel and a quick blow dry. Those rats with less healthy gut flora gave up, en masse, within about two minutes. This is a classic sign of depression, less exploration and stress avoidance escape behaviour. 

The conclusion, the good gut bacteria were somehow altering brain function in a positive way. Further experiments, this time with the unfortunate effects of euthanising the participants, pin pointed the vagus nerve - the vagus nerve is one of 12 cranial nerves, extending from the brain stem to the abdomen. When this was surgically severed, the probiotics conferred no such protective effects in stress avoidance or blood cortisol levels.

Use this study, embedded below, to address the IB Psychology Abnormal Psychology option learning outcome: Analyse etiologies  of one disorder (major depression). As well as IB Psychology Abnormal Psychology option learning outcome: Evaluate the use of biomedical, individual and group approaches to the treatment of one disorder (again, major depression).


Feeling sad? Anxious about that party you are attending on the weekend? Simple answer ... get stuck into a big tub of healthy (and delicious) of natural yogurt. Yum yum!
A really funny, insightful and illuminating 15 minutes of Radiolab. Listening to this is guaranteed to send you straight out to your local supermarket to stock up on yogurt. 

Picture

Of course, if you don't have time to prepare your own model IB Psychology exam questions, you can borrow ours! All answers to the IB Psychology extended response questions have been prepared for you. Full marks guaranteed!
Picture
Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Blind to the obvious

30/7/2014

Comments

 
Why we can't see what is straight in front of us
Insights into an illusionists world, why you didn't notice your wife's new hairstyle and the IB Psychology ERQ - Models of Memory
Picture

Change blindness

I tried explaining this to my wife yesterday … unfortunately it didn’t get me out of trouble. I dedicate this blog post to her and my IB Psychology student (you know who you are) who asked me if the ‘door experiment’ was a fake.

Yesterday I returned home, greeted my wife with a peck on the cheek and began chatting, after a while I realised something was wrong and becoming increasingly more wrong. I’m very perceptive like that. It turns out that she had been out to the hair salon that day and I hadn’t noticed. Perhaps not so perceptive after all. Of course, once she had pointed it out to me, it was immediately obvious. And armed with my Psychology I had an immediate explanation … ‘Gorillas in Our Midst’, a classic experiment by Simons and Chabris (1999).

Most people with a passing interest in human behaviour would probably be aware of the experiment. Participants are informed that they will be shown a video of a group of people passing a basketball back and forth between themselves, and that the only thing they are required to do is count the exact number of passes that are made. They are also informed that it wasn’t going to be made easy for them. The individuals in the video would be moving around. There would be two groups passing basketballs, both of them moving around, and participants were to count only the number of passes made by the group wearing white t-shirts.

As with much experimentation in Psychology, there was a bit of ‘trickery’ involved. Simons and Chabris weren’t at all interested in the correct number of passes but in whether something that should be blindingly obvious could be made entirely ‘invisible’ with what illusionist term ‘misdirection’. What participants weren’t told was that in the course of the video someone in a gorilla costume would appear, walk between the basketballers, stop, beat its chest and then exit stage left. How many participants would notice the gorilla? Approximately 50 per cent (which is a figure that has been replicated). Half the participants gave the experimenters a completely blank look … “Gorilla? What gorilla?” and many would accuse the experimenters of using two different videos when they were asked to look again. You can’t miss the gorilla when you know the gorilla is going to appear.

We have embedded a version of the video shown to participants here. It is well worth showing even if your IB Psychology students are familiar with the study because, not giving too much away, other things are going on which highlight ‘inattentional blindness’. The TED talk by Simons is also very informative.

IB Psychology students can relate this experiment to the IB Psychology learning outcome: Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process (the cognitive process being memory). One of the more common models to examine is the multistore model of memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). As can be seen in the diagram below and according to this model memory consists of the three types of memory stores:
  • Sensory stores
  • Short-term stores (STS)
  • Long-term stores (LTS)
The gorilla enters everyone’s’ visual field. The gorilla is picked up by the eyes and sent to the visual cortex for further processing (one of the modality-specific sensory stores). This all happens in milliseconds and is automatic and unconscious. We see the gorilla but we don’t see it at this stage. If we then attend to the gorilla sensory information, “Oh look, a gorilla!”(“tricky psychologists”) then the cognitive process of perception kicks in. To perceive something is to become conscious or aware of it. If we are misdirected (the gorilla) or preoccupied with something else (my wife’s hair style) we will be completely blind to what we ‘see’. Thus, perception and attention are one and the same.

However, as my wife pointed out, this does indeed beg the question, "Why isn't your attention focused on me?"
Picture

Inattentional Blindness

Gorillas in our Midst - PDF download
Show to your IB Psychology class before you do anything else!

Daniel Simon's TED Talk


Picture

also called 'change blindness'

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology


Comments

Black thoughts, black boxes and black magic

23/4/2014

Comments

 
Are America's children over-medicated?
Picture
In the IB Psychology Abnormal option we examine the effect of various biomedical approaches to the treatment of various psychological disorders. We examine the biomedical approach to the treatment of major depression under the following two learning outcomes: 
  1. Examine biomedical, individual and group approaches to treatment.
  2. Evaluate the use of biomedical, individual and group approaches to the treatment of one disorder.

There are different biomedical treatments for depression that could be considered here, for example lobotomies and electroshock (electroconvulsive) therapy, but by far the most widely used biomedical approach to the treatment of major depression is the use of antidepressants. You are probably familiar with the brand names Prozac and Zoloft even if you have never had a sad day in your life. The biological mechanisms behind our most common (and effective) antidepressants seem grounded in sound science. 

Serotonin is our brain's 'feel good' neurotransmitter, and by boosting serotonin levels in the brain we should be able to make our depressive patients feel a whole lot better about themselves and life in general. SSRIs, or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, do exactly this, they inhibit the neurotransmitter serotonin from being reabsorbed back into the synapses where it was initially released, thus allowing for a build up of serotonin in the synaptic gap and an increase in activity in serotonergic neurons. What you will find once you dig deep enough is that this is incredibly controversial.  
This question of biomedical treatments is examined in-depth in two model answers to the IB Psychology ERQs
Picture
Picture
And, when we start prescribing these medications to our children in ever increasing numbers you can be sure that serious questions are going to be raised. Consider the list of side effects of one of our most commonly prescribed SSRIs:

The long, long side effects of Prozac list:
Picture
  • anxiety
  • decreased appetite
  • decreased sexual ability
  • decreased sexual drive
  • diarrhea
  • dizziness
  • drowsiness
  • dry mouth
  • headache
  • increased sweating
  • nausea
  • nervousness
  • symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), including:
  • anxiety or nervousness
  • chills
  • cold sweats
  • cool pale skin
  • difficulty concentrating
  • drowsiness
  • excessive hunger
  • fast heartbeat
  • headache
  • shakiness or unsteady walk
  • unusual tiredness or weakness
  • tiredness
  • trouble sleeping
  • upset stomach
  • weakness
  • breast enlargement or pain
  • difficulty urinating
  • fast or irregular heartbeat
  • hallucinations
  • inability to sit still, or restlessness
  • missed menstrual periods
  • allergic reaction (e.g., skin rash, hives, or itching)
  • bleeding (e.g., unusual nosebleeds, bruising, blood in urine, coughing blood, bleeding gums, cuts that don't stop bleeding) 
  • liver problems (e.g., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, weight loss, yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes, dark urine, pale stools)
  • mania (e.g., decreased need for sleep, elevated or irritable mood, racing thoughts)
  • symptoms of increased pressure in the eyes (e.g., decreased or blurred vision, eye pain, red eye, swelling of the eye)
  • talking, feeling, and acting with excitement and activity you cannot control
  • unusual or incomplete body or facial movements
  • unusual secretion of milk (women)
  • convulsions (seizures)
  • serious allergic reaction (e.g., abdominal cramps, difficulty breathing, nausea and vomiting, or swelling of the face and throat)
  • bleeding in the stomach 
  • hyponatremia (low blood sodium), including:
  • confusion
  • convulsions (seizures)
  • increased thirst
  • lack of energy
  • serotonin syndrome, including:
  • diarrhea
  • fever
  • increased sweating
  • mood or behaviour changes
  • overactive reflexes
  • racing heartbeat
  • restlessness
  • shivering or shaking

ARe America's Children Over-medicated?

The documentary above provides an informative and entertaining look into the world of psychotropic medications being prescribed to children in America. 
Picture

Is the effectiveness of SSRIs due to the placebo effect? Reviewing the evidence we can conclude that using the most common antidepressant medications, the SSRIs such as Prozac and Zoloft are no more effective than taking a placebo. Moreover, reviewing the list of side effects, taking a placebo may be a whole lot safer!
The biomedical treatment of depression
The biomedical approach to treatment is based on the assumption that if a mental problem is caused by biological malfunctioning, the cure is to restore the biological system with drugs. For example, the serotonin hypothesis of depression suggests that depression is linked to low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin (Coppen, 1967). Serotonin is a neurotransmitter produced by specific neurons in the brain that are called serotonergic neurons because they produce serotonin. Antidepressant treatment should therefore aim to regulate serotonin levels. Antidepressants are often used in the treatment of bulimia nervosa because many patients also suffer from other disorders such as depression (the problem of comorbidity).

Antidepressants are also used to treat minor depressive symptoms but the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2004) warned that the use of antidepressants for children and adolescents could perhaps lead to an increased risk of suicide. In fact, the FDA adopted a "black box" label warning indicating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behaviour in some children and adolescents with major depression at about twice the rate of placebo. A black-box warning is the most serious type of warning in prescription drug labelling.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)

Picture
Figure 1: SSRIs increase serotonin levels in the synaptic gap
Antidepressants in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) block the reuptake process for serotonin This results in an increased amount of the serotonin in the synaptic gap (see figure 1). The theory is that this increases serotonergic nerve activity leading to an improvement in mood. Essentially, the only evidence that exists in favour of the serotonin hypothesis is the alleged efficacy of SSRIs – if they make your serotonin more potent and this improves your condition, the problem must have been in your serotonin levels to begin with, or so the logic goes. According to Lacoste & Leo (2005) this is an example of backward reasoning. Assumptions about the causes of depression are based on how people respond to a treatment and this is logically problematic. For example, the symptoms of headaches can be treated by aspirin, but this is definitely not to say that the cause of headaches is a deficiency of aspirin.

SSRI drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil are now amongst the most commonly prescribed antidepressants and this has been taken as indirect support for the serotonin hypothesis. They do affect mood and emotional responses positively in most people (although much of this may be due to the placebo effect; Kirsch et al., 2008). SSRIS have been criticised because they treat the symptoms of depression but do not cure the mental disorder, and because depressive episodes usually recur, it is necessary for patients to continue taking the medication. Unless the medication is used with therapy, it is unlikely that the disorder will disappear permanently.  

However, SSRIs are popular because they have fewer side effects than previous drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants. Not everyone can use SSRIs and the most common side effects are headache, nausea, sleeplessness, agitation and sexual problems.
Neale et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of published studies on the outcome of antidepressants versus placebo. The study focussed on: 
(i) patients who started with antidepressants and then changed to placebo, 
(ii)  patients who only received placebo, and 
(iii) patients who only took antidepressants. The study found that patients who do not take antidepressants have a 25% risk of relapse, compared to 42% or higher for those who have been on medication and then stopped it.

According to the researchers, antidepressants may interfere with the brain’s self-regulation. They argue that drugs affecting serotonin or other neurotransmitters may increase the risk of relapse. The drugs reduce symptoms in the short-term but, when people stop taking the drug, depression may return because the brain’s natural self-regulation is disturbed.

Ingeniously, Henninger et al. (1996) performed experiments where they reduced serotonin levels in healthy individuals to see if they would develop depressive symptoms. The results did not support that levels of serotonin could influence depression; i.e., there was no evidence for a cause-effect relationship, and they argued that it was necessary to revise the serotonin hypothesis. This is strong evidence against the hypothesis because if low levels of serotonin do cause depression and they were successful in reducing serotonin levels in their participants (and the evidence presented suggests that this was the case), then this can be considered strong evidence against the serotonin-depression hypothesis. However, there has been debate around just how depression was monitored in this study.

Leauhter et al. (2002) examined changes in brain function during treatment with placebo.  The study examined brain function in 51 patients with depression who either received placebo or an active antidepressant medication. An EEG was used to compare brain function in the two experimental groups. The design was double-blind and ran over none weeks. The study used two different SSRI, which were randomly allocated to participants.

Results showed a significant increase in activity in the prefrontal cortex nearly from in the beginning in the trial in the placebo group. The pattern was different from the patients who were treated with the SSRI but patients in both groups got better. This indicates that medication is effective, but placebo is just as effective. The findings from the study are intriguing. The difference in activity in the brain indicates that the brain is perhaps able to heal itself since there was a positive effect for both groups. Believing that they are being treated could be enough for many patients.

Kirsch et al. (2002) found that there was a publication bias in research into the effectiveness of SSRI in depression. In fact, if the results of all studies (including the ones that had not been published) were pooled together it would seem that the placebo effect accounted for 80% of the antidepressant response. A placebo is a substance that has no therapeutic effect, and is used as a control in testing new drugs. Of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies, 57% failed to show a statistically significant difference between antidepressant and a neutral placebo. This and similar studies cast doubt on the serotonin hypothesis, not to mention the ethics of drug companies. However, it is still widely promoted by pharmaceutical companies and presumably believed by the 10% of Americans taking these SSRIs to treat depression.

In sum, when evaluating the evidence for the biomedical approach to the treatment of major depression we can conclude that SSRIs may reduce depressive symptoms but they have side effects and do not cure patients. It is likely that the placebo effect could account for the effectiveness of the medication. Further, because the mechanisms are not well understood not how antidepressants affect the brain in the long-term, it is possible that the heavy use of these could well be damaging. There is also increasing criticism of the role of pharmaceutical companies and their marketing of antidepressants, which has led to an increase in the prescription of SSRI.

So parents, your kid is acting a little bit moody, disinterested and disengaged from her surrounds, should you be pushing your GP for some Prozac? 


Have a read of the side effects of antidepressants in children and adolescents in the journal article below.

Black Magic - The Placebo Effect


Antidepressants are placebos


Black box warnings 

side effects of SSRIs on children

If your answer to the above question was a resounding "No way!", based on the evidence that that they aren't effective, then you may have added reason to pat yourself on the back ... the FDA has also issued a 'black box' warning on all SSRI antidepressants. They found and believed it was in the public interest that those taking SSRIs be warned that there is an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior (suicidality) in children and adolescents treated with SSRI antidepressant medications.

The black box warning, a type of warning issued by the FDA that must appear on the packaging of certain prescription drugs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required all pharmaceutical companies to place a boxed warning on the labeling of  prescription antidepressants, or in literature describing it. It is the strongest warning that the FDA requires, and signifies that medical studies indicate that the drug carries a significant risk of serious or even life-threatening adverse effects.

In this instance, the FDA believes that already depressed children are more likely to commit suicide because taking these medications leads to the idea of suicide becoming more salient.

Consequently, prescriptions issued for antidepresants have fallen by over 20 per  cent in the US.

Now, this may seem a good thing in light of all of the evidence presented here. But consider this: during this time, child and adolescent suicides in the US jumped by 11 per cent!  So, I'll leave you with this final thought ... s
hould we now be prescribing a nice, safe placebo instead for a mental illness that has very real consequences for the sufferer?
Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology


Comments

Abnormality is in the eye of the beholder

14/4/2014

Comments

 
Another ERQ model answer from IB Psychology
Picture
Abnormal psychology is based upon the assumption that we know what 'abnormal' is, which in turn, is based upon us knowing what 'normal' is. So, how exactly do we make these judgments?

You're hanging out a LOT in your dark, smelly and incredibly messy bedroom, not talking to family and only interacting with your friends online. Teachers are concerned about you, your family is worried sick. Do you have some sort of social anxiety disorder? Surely this is a manifestation of a mental illness? ... but hang on! Isn't this just 'normal' teenage behaviour?


Have you ever wondered just how easily you could  be confined to a mental hospital if say, your parents, didn't like the way you were behaving? If their concepts of normality and abnormality differed from yours? The answer is, probably pretty easily, but not as easily as in the past, and more easily in some countries than in others. Thus, we need some some sort of objective definition or classification of what abnormal behaviour actually is, and how we can make a judgement as to whether someone has a mental illness or not. 


The IB Psychology learning outcome: Examine concepts of normality and abnormality, takes a very good look at this thought-provoking issue.

Much of what we examine in the model ERQ answer focuses on Rosenhan's seminal research. Rosenhan (1973) performed some ground-breaking research with his quasi-experimental study. Here, he and his fellow researchers managed to gain admittance to a variety of psychiatric hospitals around the US after presenting themselves and claiming that a voice in their head was saying "empty", "hollow" and "thud". They found that getting committed was very easy, and getting out was very, very hard ...

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality


Picture
Just Give Me the Answers! provides you with the complete collection of model answers for all extended response questions in the Paper 1 and 2 IB Psychology exams. This will save you hundreds of hours of work!
Rosenhan's 1973 original article
This article, published in the very prestigious 'Science' journal caused a great deal of controversy and forced the Psychiatric industry to examine their understand of, and practices and procedures around the 'mentally ill'. It changed the way we diagnose and assess degrees of mental illness.

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

Another exemplar model ERQ answer for the IB Psychology course. This one is from the Abnormal option and if the student manages to replicate in their IB Psychology exams they are guaranteed to be awarded the full possible 22/22 marks.

Picture
Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

The presence of a mental disorder may be considered a deviation from mental health norms and hence the study of mental disorders is often known as abnormal psychology. ‘Normal’ and ‘abnormal’, as applied to human behaviour, are relative terms. Many people use these classifications subjectively and carelessly, often in a judgmental manner, to suggest good or bad behaviour. As defined in the dictionary, their accurate use would seem easy enough: ‘normal’ – conforming to a typical pattern and ‘abnormal’ – deviating from a norm. The trouble lies in the word norm. Whose norm? For what age person? At what period of history? In which culture?

The definition of the word abnormal is simple enough but applying this to psychology poses a complex problem. The concept of abnormality is imprecise and difficult to define. Examples of abnormality can take many different forms and involve different features, so that, what at first sight seem quite reasonable definitions, turns out to be quite problematical. There are several different ways in which it is possible to define ‘abnormal’ as opposed to our ideas of what is ‘normal’

Defining normality

Mental health model of normality (Jahoda, 1958)

The model suggests criteria for what might constitute normal psychological health (in contrast to abnormal psychological health). Deviation from these criteria would mean that the health of an individual is ‘abnormal’:

  • The absence of mental illness
  • Realistic self-perception and contact with reality
  • A strong sense of identity and positive self-esteem
  • Autonomy and independence
  • Ability to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships (e.g., capacity to love)
  • Ability to cope with stressful situations
  • Capacity for personal growth and self-actualisation

Evaluation of the mental health model of normality

The majority of people would be categorised as ‘abnormal’ if the criteria were applied to them. It is relatively easy to establish criteria for what constitutes ‘physical health’ but it is impossible to establish and agree on what constitutes ‘psychological health’. According to Szasz (1962) psychological normality and abnormality are culturally defined concepts, which are not based on objective criteria.

Taylor & Brown (1988) argue that the view that a psychologically healthy person is one that maintains close contact with reality is not in line with research findings. People generally have positive ‘illusions’ about themselves and they rate themselves more positively than others (Lewinshohn et al., 1980). For example most people rate themselves as being above average in driving ability, and above average in physical appearance, both of which are a statistical nonsense when considering the essential nature of an average. 

Further, the criteria in the model are culturally biased value judgements; i.e., they reflect an idealised perception of what it means to be human in a Western culture. For example, self-actualisation (Maslow, 1968) means the achievement of one's full potential through creativity, independence, spontaneity, and a grasp of the real world. The concept of self-actualisation to a South Sudanese in the middle of sectarian strife, war and famine would be nonsensical at that point in time.

Defining abnormality

The mental illness criterion (the medical model)

The mental illness criterion sees psychological disorders (abnormality) as psychopathology. Pathology means ‘illness’ so it literally means ‘illness in the psyche’. The criterion is linked to psychiatry, which is a branch of medicine, specifically, a branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders. Patients with psychological problems are seen as ‘ill’ in the same way as those who suffer from physiological illnesses.

Diagnosis of mental illness is based on the clinician’s (clinical psychologist, psychiatrist) observations, the patient’s self-reports and diagnostic manuals (classification systems) that classify symptoms of specific disorders to help doctors find a correct diagnosis. The most widely used classification system is the new DSM-5, which is the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications.

Being diagnosed or labelled as being abnormal – mentally ill can have striking consequences in this model, as a controversial study designed to test the medical model and its conception of normality and abnormality. 

Rosenhahn (1973) – on being sane in insane places

Aim: To test reliability and validity of diagnosis in a natural setting. Rosenhahn wanted to see if psychiatrists could distinguish between ‘abnormal’ and ‘normal’ behaviour.

Procedure: This was a covert participant observation with eight participants consisting of five men and three women (including Rosenhahn himself). Their task was to follow the same instructions and present themselves at 12 psychiatric hospitals in the US. These pseudo-patients telephoned the hospital for an appointment, and arrived at the admissions office complaining that they had been hearing voices.  They said the voice, which was unfamiliar and the same sex as themselves, was often unclear but it said “empty”, “hollow”, “thud”.

After they had been admitted to the psychiatric ward, the pseudo patients stopped simulating any symptoms of abnormality. The pseudo patients took part in ward activities, speaking to patients and staff as they might ordinarily.  When asked how they were feeling by staff they said they were fine and no longer experienced symptoms.  Each pseudo patient had been told they would have to get out by their own devices by convincing staff they were sane.

Results and conclusion: All participants were admitted to various psychiatric wards and all but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia (the other diagnosis was for manic depression). All pseudo-patients behaved normally while they were hospitalised because they were told they would only get out if the staff perceived them to be well enough.

The pseudo-patients took notes when they were hospitalised but this was interpreted as a symptom of their illness by the staff. It took between 7 and 52 days before the participants were released. They came out with a diagnosis (schizophrenia in remission) so they were ‘labelled’.

A follow-up study was done later where the staff at a specific psychiatric hospital were told that imposters would present themselves at the hospital and that they should try to rate each patient whether he or she was an imposter. Of the 193 patients, 41 were clearly identified as impostors by at least one member of the staff, 23 were suspected to be impostors by one psychiatrist, and 19 were suspected by one psychiatrist and one staff member. There were no impostors.

Rosenhahn claims that the study demonstrates that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane. The main experiment illustrated a failure to detect sanity, and the secondary study demonstrated a failure to detect insanity. Rosenhahn explains that psychiatric labels tend to stick in a way that medical labels do not and that everything a patient does is interpreted in accordance with the diagnostic label once it has been applied.

Evaluation: This controversial study was conducted nearly 40 years ago but it had an enormous impact on psychiatry. It sparked off a discussion and revision of diagnostic procedures as well as discussion of the consequences of diagnosis for patients. The development of diagnostic manuals (e.g., DSM-V) has increased the validity and reliability of diagnosis of what is abnormal or normal in terms of mental health, although diagnostic tools are not without flaws.

The method used raises ethical issues (the staff were not told about the research) but it was justified since the results provided evidence of problems in the diagnosis of mental illness (i.e., being non-beneficially abnormal) which could benefit others. There were serious ethical issues with the follow-up study since the staff thought that imposters would present, but they were real patients and may not have had the treatment they needed.

Evaluation of the mental illness criterion

Proponents of the mental illness criterion argue that it is an advantage to be diagnosed as ‘sick’ because it shows that people are not responsible for their acts. For example, an individual who does not get out of bed because they have been diagnosed for depression; i.e., labelled as being ‘depressed’ and not because they are fatigued (a symptom).

Although the origin of some mental disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) can be linked to physiological changes in the brain, most psychological disorders cannot. Also, critics of the mental illness criterion argue that there is a stigma (i.e., a mark of infamy or disgrace) associated with mental illness.

Abnormality as statistical deviation from the norm

Deviance in this criterion is related to the statistical average. The definition implies that statistically common behaviour can be classified as ‘normal’. Behaviour that is deviant from the norm is consequently ‘abnormal’. In the normal distribution curve most behaviour falls in the middle. A normal distribution curve is a theoretical frequency distribution for a set of variable data (e.g., scores on an IQ test), usually represented by a bell-shaped curve symmetrical about the mean.

Picture
An individual with an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 150 is a deviation from the norm of 100. It is statistically rare but it is considered desirable to have high intelligence. Mental retardation seen as an abnormality in the other direction (sometimes defined as having an IQ below 70) but this is considered undesirable. Obesity is becoming statistically ‘normal’ but obesity is considered undesirable.

Evaluation of the statistical criterion

The use of statistical frequency and deviation from the statistical norm is not a reliable criterion to define abnormal behaviour since what is ‘abnormal’ in a statistical sense may both be desirable and undesirable. What may be considered abnormal behaviour can differ from one culture to another so it is therefore impossible to establish universal standards for statistical abnormality. The model of statistical deviation from the norm always relates to a specific culture.

Abnormality as deviation from social norms

Social norms constitute informal or formal rules of how individuals are expected to behave. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that is considered undesirable or anti-social by the majority of people in a given society. Individuals who break rules of conduct or do not behave like the majority are defined as ‘abnormal’ according to this criterion.

Social, cultural and historical factors may play a role in what is seen as ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ within a certain society. For example, around the 1900s in the UK, homosexuality was seen as abnormal and people could be imprisoned or forcibly treated for this ‘mental illness’. Homosexuality was classified as an abnormal sexual deviation in the DSM-II (1968). In later revisions of the manual, homosexuality in itself was not seen as abnormal – only feeling distressed about it was.

Evaluation of the deviation from statistical norms criterion

This criterion is not objective or stable since it is related to socially based definitions that change across time and culture. Further, because the norm is based on morals and attitudes it is vulnerable to abuse. For example, political dissidents could be considered ‘abnormal’ and sent to hospitals for treatment, which was something that occurred in the former Soviet Union. Using this criterion could lead to discrimination against minorities, including people who suffer from psychological disorders. 

Psychological disorders may be defined and diagnosed in different ways across cultures and what seems to be a psychological disorder in one culture may not be seen the same way in another culture. The DSM includes disorders called ‘culture-bound syndromes’; for example, penis panic (!) or Koro. This indicates that it is impossible to set universal standards for classifying a behaviour as abnormal.

General conclusion

None of the above definitions provide a complete definition of abnormality. Mental health (e.g., Jahoda) and mental illness (i.e., the medical model) are probably two-sides of the same coin, but do provide insights of their own. Examining these concepts through statistical deviations from norms does not tell us about the desirability of the deviation.  Attempting to define abnormality is in itself a culturally specific task. What seems abnormal in one culture may be seen as perfectly normal in another, and hence it is difficult to define abnormality.

Word count: 2 000
Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology
Model IB Psychology ERQ Answer


Comments

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

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 voilà, 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

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

The First Commandment of IB Psychology

21/2/2014

Comments

 
Know thy command terms.
In search of perfect answers to your IB Psychology examination questions? You will need to start with the command term. "Outline two principles that define the cognitive level of analysis" will be answered differently from "Explain the two principles that define the cognitive level of analysis." Outline and Explain are both examples of command terms that can be used in short answer exam questions. That difference needs to be apparent in your answer to each question - you can be sure that the beady little eyes of the IB examiner will be scrutinising your answer for this information.

When answering IB Psychology exam questions it is important to identify the command term in each question. These will determine how you should answer the question. Command terms such as 'explain', 'outline', ‘examine’, 'to what extent', and so on carry different meanings and this should be reflected in your answers.

The command term in an examination question is very important. It provides two things the examiner is looking for and specifically awarding (or penalising!) you marks for. The first is structure. Are you structuring you answer according to the command term to answer the question? Secondly, has your answer ‘effectively addressed the command term’? 

Below is one of the markband descriptors IB Psychology examiners are using to mark you Short Answer Questions (i.e. those three 8 mark questions in the Paper 1 exam). Not addressing the command term will limit your maximum mark to 6 marks, instead of the full 8 had your answer effectively addressed the command term.
Picture
The first commandment of IB Psychology
Your flashcard set is proving to be a great way to get my students practicing their command terms.
- Jane Freeeman, 1st year IB Psychology teacher

Picture
Every IB Psychology examination question has a command term

Picture
In the long answer Extended Response Questions (ERQs), those 22 mark essay questions in the Paper 1 and 2 HL and SL IB Psychology exams, examiners are looking for and marking command term application in two of the criteria they are assessing. 
Picture
Picture
If the command term is incorrectly addressed in your answer, you will be limited to a maximum of 6 marks for Criterion B (maximum possible 9 marks) and to a maximum of 2 marks in Criterion C (with a maximum possible 4 marks that can be awarded. That is an enormous 5 marks you are giving up for each Extended Response Question in the exams. And you will need to answer three ERQs if you are a HL IB Psychology student, and two if studying at SL. Another 2 marks across three SAQs will be forfeited in the HL and SL Paper 1 exam.

Conclusion: If you do not learn your command terms and practice tailored answers to the IB examination questions according to the command term requirement you will be foregoing many marks and at least an entire grade boundary in your total IB Psychology score, possible two. Knowing your command terms could easily elevate your IB Psychology Diploma mark from a 5 to a 7 to ensure maximum success, or from a 3 to a 4 to avoid certain failure. Thus, the first rule of IB Psychology is: KNOW THY COMMAND TERMS.

The tables below summarises how you should use the command terms when you are answering questions and how they apply to particular questions. I will actively look for a particular structure associated with the command term to be present in a student's answer when assessing their SAQ or ERQ answer. If their knowledge and comprehension is outstanding and the critical thinking deep and analytical, I still will not award full marks if I believe the command term has not been addressed. Harsh!

There are 15 IB Psychology command terms in total. Only seven of these can be used to ask the extended response exam questions.

Command terms associated with assessment objective 1: Knowledge and comprehension

Picture

Command terms associated with assessment objective 2: Application and analysis

Picture

Command terms associated with assessment objective 3: Synthesis and evaluation

Picture
Important information about IB Psychology command terms:

In the learning outcomes (see syllabus content) the command terms are associated with assessment objectives 1, 2 or 3 and indicate the depth of understanding that is required of students in relation to each item of content. The grouping of command terms under assessment objectives reflects the cognitive demand of each term and is related to Bloom’s taxonomy.
  • A command term used in an examination question will be:
  • The same as that specified in the related learning outcome, or
  • Another command term associated with the same assessment objective, or
  • A command term of less cognitive demand.
For example, if a learning outcome begins with the command term “explain”, an examination question based on this learning outcome could contain the command term “explain”, another command term associated with assessment objective 2 (such as “analyse”), or a command term associated with assessment objective 1 (such as “describe”), but not a command term associated with assessment objective 3 (such as “evaluate”).

This means: A lower level learning outcome (e.g. ‘Explain one study related to localization of function in the brain’ will never be asked as a 22 mark ERQ in the IB Psychology examinations. It means you can plan your ERQ answers in advance and think about how you can adapt each answer if it is asked with a different command term. Don't delay. Start practicing today.

Notes on Command Terms: PDF Download
Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments
Forward>>

    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.