Category: Extended Response Question

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

3/3/2016

The best 5 tips from experienced IB Psychology teachers on how you can achieve that IB Psychology 7.

The scary fact is, only four percent of IB Psychology students manage to get a 7 in each examination session. In the video below we show you how to become one of the elite!

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

Our video above covers these top 5 tips for achieving the IB Psychology 7:

You already know the questions that can be asked in all 3 of your IB Psychology examination papers! (Yes, really.)
The IB Psychology Paper 1 examination has three sections - DO NOT study for two of these! (Yes, really.)
Aim for maximum marks in your IB Psychology IA. (Almost goes without saying.)
Prepare and memorise model answers to ALL of the extended response questions you are going to target in IB Psychology exams. (But be smart about it!)
Don’t ignore Qualitative Research Methods, because your IB Psychology teacher almost certainly will! (You need lots of practice with actual stimulus material - i.e., qualitative research)

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

In IB Psychology exams, content is king

10/1/2016

How to get that elusive IB Psychology 7? Your Paper 1 and Paper 2 extended response answers must get very near to full marks in the IB Psychology examinations. To achieve full marks you need great content.

Each of the extended response question (ERQ) answers in your IB Psychology exams will be marked out of a total of 22 marks and judged against only three criteria, of which, knowledge and critical thinking are key (see below). You can be awarded 9 marks for each of these criteria in each of your IB Psychology ERQ answers, that's two ERQs for SL students and 3 for HL IB Psychology students. That's a massive 36 (SL) or 54 (HL) marks, and as such, your answers to these two or three questions will make or break your entire IB Psychology career. Mess one of these ERQs up, and there's no coming back - your glorious vision of the IB Psychology 7 will lie shattered on the floor. No pressure then! You absolutely need to have great content practiced, memorised and rehearsed. Fortunately, before you even set foot in the exam room, you already know exactly what will be in your IB Psychology exam (see previous post).

IB Psychology ERQ examiner's marking criteria:
A. Knowledge and comprehension [9 marks]:The answer demonstrates detailed, accurate knowledge and understanding relevant to the question, and uses relevant psychological research effectively in support of the IB Psychology question response.
B. Evidence of critical thinking: application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation [9 marks]: The answer integrates relevant and explicit evidence of critical thinking in response to the IB Psychology exam question.
C. Organisation [4 marks]: The answer is well organised, well developed and focused on the IB Psychology exam question.

One of the (less than) four per cent!

Remember, we take all of the guess work and all of the hard work out of IB Psychology with our especially prepared model IB Psychology exam answers.

An often quoted and always scary fact is that less than four per cent of IB Psychology students manage to achieve a 7. It just does not come with luck. Any student aiming to achieve the IB Psychology 7 must start preparing and memorising model answers to each learning outcome preceded with a command term focusing the student on synthesis and evaluation for one of the Paper 1 topics and each option being studied. Concepts, knowledge, relevant research and critical thinking and evaluations need to be prepared and practiced. You don't have time in the IB Psychology to think your way through a question, and, because you know what the question will be, there's no need to think in the exam because all of your thinking has taken place prior to the exam.

Having great content in sufficient depth and breadth is the only way you will near full marks and gain the 7 in IB Psychology. Your answers need to be detailed, cover multiple research studies, define and explain key terms and discuss content in context. And, importantly, critical thinking should be planned for throughout each of your IB Psychology ERQs. It sounds like a lot, and it is, which is exactly why so few students manage lock in that IB Psychology 7.

Below, we have a model ERQ for the IB Psychology learning outcome in the socio-cultural level of analysis: Discuss two errors in attributions (for example, fundamental attribution error, illusory correlation, and self‑serving bias). You will see it covers a lot of content and that's good (as long as it's not repetitive), but you will also see that it leaves the IB Psychology examiner in no doubt as to whether or not she should be awarding full marks. And, as long as the hard work has been previously done by you, this response can easily be written in 60-70 minutes under exam conditions (notwithstanding your writer's cramp!).

IN The IB Psychology ERQ - Great content is required

Model IB Psychology ERQ answer

Discuss two errors in attributions (for example, fundamental attribution error, illusory correlation, and self‑serving bias)

This answer addresses what attributions are, and how people can make different types of attributions to explain their own and other people’s behaviour. This will be followed by an in-depth discussion, referencing relevant research, of two of the most common types of socio-cognitive errors people make in attributing the cause of behaviour to internal or external factors: the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of each theory will be addressed in the conclusion.

There are different types of explanations people can make to explain behaviour. When people go to parties, what determines the extent to which they will socialise with others? Is it the kind of people they are, or the situation they find themselves in? We make these attributions about the causes of behaviour in two distinct and important ways:

Dispositional causes: When attributing the cause of people’s behaviour to their internal characteristics (they are shy, they are outgoing), we are making a dispositional attribution. The term disposition refers to someone’s beliefs, attitudes and personality.
Situational causes: When we attribute people’s behaviour to external factors (they don’t know anyone there) such as the immediate rewards and punishments in a social setting or social pressure, we are making a situational attribution.

Now that we know what dispositional and situational attributions are, we can examine the first of our attribution errors to be discussed here.

The fundamental attribution error (FAE)
Laypeople, like some psychologists, favour explanations of behaviour in terms of dispositional, rather than situational, factors. So if people behave kindly towards us (i.e. they greet us with a smile) we conclude they have a kind personality. And if they behave in a way that seems impolite to us (i.e. they do not greet us at all) we tend to think of them as rude. Instead of acknowledging the role played by situational determinants, we assume that other people’s behaviours reflect their dispositions. To the extent that we do so, we commit the fundamental attribution error. This term refers to a bias to attribute other’s behaviour to stable internal causes rather than external circumstances.

An experiment by Jones & Harris (1967) demonstrates the FAE. The researchers asked their participants to rad essays written by fellow students. The essays were about Castro’s rule in Cuba and were either supportive or critical of Castro. The participants’ task was to guess what attitude the writers of the essay really held towards Castro and his government. Half the participants were told that the essayists were free to choose whether to take a negative or positive view about Castro in their essay (choice condition). The other half were told that the essayists did not have any choice: the experimenter had assigned them in the pro-Castro or anti-Castro role (no choice condition).
As expected, participants in the choice condition assumed that the essays reflected the genuine attitudes of their writers. However, participants’ ratings seemed to indicate those in the no choice condition also though the essays reflected the genuine views of the authors. So despite the fact that it was made clear, that the essayist’s behaviour was severely constrained by the situation, observers still opted for an internal attribution.

An experiment by Gilbert & Jones (1986) went further by demonstrating that participants would hold speakers responsible for the views they express even when it was the participants themselves who had determined which side of the argument the speakers were allowed to argue. The FAE has been demonstrated in many studies. Yet there is evidence to suggest that dispositional attributions are far from inevitable.

In a study by Fein et al. (1990), US students read an essay about a character called Rob Taylor. In one of the conditions participants were told that Rob had been assigned to write either in favour or against some view. In this condition, the expected FAE was obtained. In a second condition, participants were led to believe that Rob’s essays expressed very similar views to those held by his professor and which, therefore, would be found pleasing by his professor. In this condition, no FAE was demonstrated. Commenting on this and similar studies, Fein (2001) argues that we resist making dispositional attributions in situations where we suspect others may have ulterior motives for their behaviours.

The may be a cultural bias in the FAE, in that culture seems to be a determinant in attribution style. In collectivist cultures (Japan and China for example) the emphasis is on the primary social relationships of an individual, e.g. family, social role, cultural activities. Whereas, in individualistic cultures (the US and the UK for example), the emphasis is on the individual as the primary cause of success and failure. Norenzayan et al. (2002) tested whether information given to Korean and American participants would influence their attributions. Wen participants only received information about individuals, both groups made dispositional attributions. When situational information was also provided, the Koreans tended to include this information in their explanations much more than the Americans did. This indicates that there may be universal feature in the FAE and that available information influences attributions, at least in some cultures.

In their explanation of the FAE, Gilbert & Malone (1995) argue that it involves a two-step attribution process. When we observe some behaviour, we draw an inference, based on largely automatic and unconscious processing, that the behaviour has been caused by some disposition. The second step is based on more controlled and conscious processing. During this step, we enquire into whether or not situational factors may have had an influence on the behaviour. We make the FAE as often as we do, Gilbert & Malone explain, for a simple reason: the first step always forms part of the attribution process, but we proceed only occasionally to the second step. In effect, the FAE happens either because we are involved in other tasks (not enough cognitive resources to think deeply about how best to explain some behaviour) or because we believe that for the behaviour under consideration the initial automatic step alone can result in the right explanation. Gilbert & Malone’s two-step explanation has received considerable experimental support.
The second attribution error that individuals make is termed the self-serving bias, and again, it is based on a distinct pattern of attributions people make on the basis of situational and dispositional causes; this time in relation to self and others.

The self-serving bias
Our attributions exhibit the self-serving bias (SSB) when we explain our successes on the basis of internal, dispositional factors and blame our failures to external, situational factors. Such biased attributions are viewed by many as serving the interests of preserving or increasing self-esteem.
Consider professional sport. As Lau & Russell (1980) sowed, professional athletes and coaches attribute 80% of their wins to internal factors (e.g. ability, skill, professionalism). Losses are far more likely to be attributed to external factors (e.g. bad luck, unfair refereeing). Studies with students have obtained very similar findings. Bernstein et al. (1979) found that students attributed their good grades to their intelligence and hard work, whereas bad grades tended to be attributed to bad teaching or bad luck.

Johnson et al. (1964) provide a good example of the SSB. In this study, participants (psychology students) taught two children how to multiply numbers by 10 and by 20. The teaching was done in two phases via a one-way intercom. The first phase involved teaching the children how to multiply by 10; the second phase, how to multiply by 20. After each phase, the children’s worksheets were made available to the participants to assess the learning progress of the children.
In fact, the worksheets had been marked in such a way that in both conditions, Pupil A gave the right answers to all the questions on both worksheets. Depending on condition, Pupil B either did badly on both tasks, or did badly on the first worksheet but improved on the second. The participants, therefore, had either failed or succeeded in teaching Pupil B the two tasks. What Johnson et al. found was that in the condition where Pupil B’s performance improved, participants explained the improvement as a success on their abilities as teachers. When Pupil B failed to improve, they attributed this to the pupil’s lack of ability.

Although SSB is widespread, there are exceptions. We are more likely to rely on self-serving attributions when we fail in a domain in which we cannot improve. However, as Duval & Silvia (2002) demonstrated, we are more likely to attribute our failure to internal causes if we believe we can do something to improve the situation in the future.

The emotional state we are in also affects our reliance on SSB: being in a bad mood may reverse the attributional pattern that characterises self-serving attributions. Furthermore, Abrahamson et al. (1989) demonstrated that depressed people often rely on an attributional pattern style that attributes success to external, and failure to internal, causes.

How can the attributional style that defines the SSB be explained? Zuckerman (1979) reviewed a number of studies of SSB and confirmed that the effect depends on a desire to maintain self-esteem. Evidence from cross-cultural studies is consistent with this interpretation. Heine et al. (1999), for example found that members of collectivist cultures (e.g. Japan) are far less likely to strive for positive self-esteem than individuals from individualistic cultures (e.g. USA). Consequently, the Japanese are found to be less likely to make self-serving attributions than Americans.

Further cultural considerations in the SSB have been found. Culture-specific attributional styles may be a natural part of enculturation and socialisation. Some argue that the SSB is primarily linked to individualistic cultures, but others believe it can be found in both individualistic and collectivist cultures. Kashima & Triandis (1986) showed slides from unfamiliar countries to American and Japanese students asked them to remember details. When the students were asked to explain their performance, the Americans explained their own success with internal factors, such as ability, and failure to external factors (i.e. the classic the SSB effect). The Japanese tended to explain their failure with lack of ability. This is called the ‘modesty bias’ and is a cultural variation of the SSB. Bond et al. (1982) argued that a possible explanation for the modesty bias in collectivist cultures could be a cultural norm in Chinese societies to maintain harmonious personal relationships. A person who makes self-effacing attributions could be expected to be better liked.

Miller & Ross (1975) proposed that several uses of self-serving attributions are rational and not based on the need to enhance self-esteem. They argue that what seems to be self-serving biases often arise because effort often changes with success but not with failure. If trying harder does not improve performance, then it is reasonable to conclude that something about the task is the obstacle. However, if trying harder does improve performance, then success is logically attributable to your trying.

In conclusion, each of these attribution theories are well supported by empirical research and each has considerable explanatory power in explaining the different types of attribution patterns that are commonly observed when people are attributing cause for the own and others behaviours. The strengths of the FAE are that the theory has promoted understanding of common errors in explanations of what happens in the world. Further, it has proven to be very robust and has been supported by many research studies. However, it has its limitations too. Firstly, it is culturally biased with too much focus on individualism. Secondly, research on the theory has been conducted in laboratories and with heavy emphasis on student samples – this leads to problems in generalising findings. The great strength of the SSB is that this theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualistic cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situation factors. However, its major limitation is that it is also culturally biased, in that it cannot explain why some cultures emphasis a self-effacing attribution – the modesty bias.

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Bomb proof IB Psychology classroom experiments

1/10/2015

Classroom experiments so easy and fool-proof, they're child's play!

We all know that classroom Psychology experiments are win-win for everyone, as long as they work (i.e., produce the desired results). Students love being involved in demonstrations of their minds in action. Teachers love the way that experiments produce deep learning that is necessary to achieve the IB Psychology 7 come examinations. This IB Psychology classroom experiment is a very effective way to teach a concept that isn't necessarily the most intuitive to grasp - Craik and Lockhart's (1972) Levels of Processing model of memory. Best of all, it always works - money back guarantee! Use this classroom experiment to teach the Cognitive Level; of Analysis (CLOA) IB Psychology learning outcome: Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process [memory].

Craik and Lockhart's (1972) Level of Processing

There is nothing to this core IB Psychology CLOA experiment really.. Do the experiment in the first half of your IB Psychology class and before you introduce the learning outcome. Download the instruction sheet below and make enough copies for your class - half the class will receive the first student instruction sheet and the other half, the second student instruction sheet.

You read the script and have students record their answers. Next, you read the questions and have students answer on a separate piece of paper. Finally, you read the answers and have students mark their neighbour's responses. Record the results in a spreadsheet and use the data projector to display the results. Allow 30 minutes, including discussion time of the results.

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Highlighting Critical Thinking in ERQs

31/8/2015

Critical thinking is the hardest part to master in answering the IB Psychology extended response questions.

Getting the critical thinking component right in your IB Psychology exams is usually the final piece of the puzzle that needs to fall into place before full marks can be awarded.

Let us show you how it's done ...

The following IB Psychology essay is an exemplar of how critical thinking can be used in an essay for the Paper II IB Psychology examination. It answers the question: Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships, an ERQ related to the Human Relationships option in the IB Psychology course.

All of the text in dark blue font is an example of critical thinking in IB Psychology (you will need to see the embedded PDF, or download it). The flags and the corresponding comments are clarifications of why this is a good example of critical thinking.

Notice in the IB Psychology ERQ that three pieces of research (studies and/or theories) are used to make the argument - but then there are two paragraphs that take a holistic approach to the question. This is the "discussion" which is what the command term is asking the student to develop in the essay response.

Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

Communication plays a key role in all aspects of human relationships. It plays a role in our attraction to others, the way we solve problems and how much we trust one another. Marriage counsellors often focus on communication as a way to improve a relationship, but often problems in a relationship are complex. Communication may be a symptom, rather than a cause of the end of a relationship.

Research by Bradbury & Fincham found that couples engage in "relationship enhancing strategies" - that is, when a partner attributes good things to the disposition of their partner, and bad things to situational factors. This helps to maintain the relationship because it can enhance the sense of self-esteem of the partner. Couples in crisis tend to use distress-maintaining patterns - that is, they attribute good things to situational factors and bad things to disposition - meaning that the partner is unlikely to change. Although Bradbury & Fincham have documented this trend in relationships, it is difficult to determine if this is a cause or a symptom of the health of a relationship.

Gottman argues that it is not what we say, but how we say it. Our facial expressions communicate how we really feel about our partners. Gottman has couples come into his lab and then he codes their facial expressions under two conditions – discussing a non-threatening topic and discussing a controversial topic. Gottman argues that there are four “horses of the apocalypse” that help to predict if a relationship will end: criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. Gottman argues that if a partner shows contempt during a discussion, this is a sign that the relationship is heading for divorce. One of the problems with this research, however, is that when Gottman tells couples that they are expressing these emotions, it may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition, most of the couples that come to him for help are already in severe crisis. This may mean that the high predictive validity of his research has more to do with the fact that at least one of the partners may have already decided to end the relationship.

A final way that we use communication in relationships is disclosure – or the sharing of personal information with a partner. This is the basis of Social Penetration theory. This builds trust. Research has shown that we like people who disclose personal information. Although this seems logical, it is difficult to determine a cause and effect relationship between disclosure and the health of a relationship. It may be more likely that disclosure is the result of a healthy relationship than the cause of one.

There are many concerns about the study of the role of communication in relationships. First, how does a psychologists “observe” communication in a relationship? Often self-reported measures are used – such as a questionnaire – to determine what the normal communication patterns are. This is difficult because the actual communications cannot be verified, so it is up to the perception of the person filling out the questionnaire. The information is open to distortion, especially if there is anger between the two partners. It can also be open to distortion if questions are asked about the history of the relationship. The peak-end rule argues that we tend to remember the most recent part of our relationship (the end) and specific events that stand out as rather exceptional (the peak). So, if the relationship is in bad shape, then the partners may only think about recent communication and this may distort their perception of the way that they have communicated throughout the relationship.

Another question is who is actually studied. A lot of the research done on communication is done on couples that are struggling with their relationship. Although some prospective research is now being done, traditionally it has been done with couples in counselling. Research should be done that looks at couples from the beginning of their relationship to truly measure how communication affects relationships long-term. It is also possible that although it is usually done with couples having problems, that the sample is also biased in other ways. A lot of the research is done on Western couples. In addition, the couples seek counselling, which may indicate a certain level of education or socioeconomic status. Finally, there is the problem of bidirectional ambiguity – that is, we cannot tell if the communication style leads to the quality of the relationship, or vice versa. It could be that there is a correlation, but no causation in either direction. Most importantly, the way we communicate is only one facet of a relationship. It is a reductionist approach to assess the health of a relationship only on communication styles.

The study of communication has led to successful strategies in marriage counselling that have helped people save their marriage by becoming more aware of how and what they say. However, labs like Gottman’s may communicate information to a couple – such as, she actually finds him disgusting – that may help to end the relationship. In this sense, the psychologist may validate one or both partners’ perceptions of the state of the relationship and decide to get divorced. Clearly more research is necessary.

IB Psychology ERQ Model answer:
Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

Model Answer Download

Take the hard work out of preparing your IB Psychology model ERQs

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

The solution to social anxiety?

31/7/2015

... and a nice way to add some critical thinking to your IB Psychology Abnormal ERQ!

We wouldn't recommend it, but you may find your IB Psychology teacher approaching the Abnormal Psychology option by teaching you about anxiety disorders, rather than affective or eating disorders. Anxiety disorders can be fun to study (e.g., look at these funny phobias) but research and theory can be difficult to discuss in depth and detail. However, IB Psychology students, if you find yourself in a classroom where anxiety disorders are the focus of the Abnormal Option, then we have a great way to incorporate that all important critical thinking into your extended response answers (i.e., that 22 mark essay question you are required to answer in your IB Psychology Paper 2 exam).

Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent of mental disorders in the United States. Social Anxiety Disorder (social phobia) is a subset of anxiety disorders. A whopping 15 million individuals in the US, or 6.8 per cent of the total population suffer from social anxiety. It's equally prevalent between men and women, and individual onset is typically around 13 years of age. Lots of people live with it for a long time before seeking help. 36 per cent of those with social anxiety disorder live with the disorder for over 10 years before seeking help.

What social anxiety feels like

The IB Psychology learning outcomes, which we all know by now are the examination questions, right? (see previous post), in the Abnormal option will ask students to learn and answer the following examination questions:

Examine biomedical, individual and group approaches to treatment.
Evaluate the use of biological, individual and group approaches to the treatment of one disorder.
Discuss the use of eclectic approaches to treatment.
Discuss the relationship between etiology and therapeutic approach in relation to one disorder.

Now we're not going to run you through the model answers to each of these four IB Psychology exam questions here. Our model answers focus on the affective disorders (depression). But we are going to show you how to incorporate that all important critical thinking and craft a perfect response, yourself.

The majority of the content you will need to discuss and evaluate in the treatment of anxiety disorders will be psychotherapy and drugs. You will likely look at cognitive behavioural therapy.

The complete set of model answers to ALL of the IB Psychology ERQs

Of course, you will need to be able to fully discuss and evaluate concepts, theories, models and studies relevant to anxiety treatments. But also, a great way to show the IB Psychology examiner that you are able to engage in and demonstrate your ability to think critically around this topic is to incorporate the study below into your answer.

TRew and Alden (2015)

Unsurprisingly, socially anxious people often avoid social interactions. They will go out of their way to limit their opportunities to engage in social interactions ("Sorry, I'm washing my hair that night, thanks.") and reduce the number of social interactions they engage in, such as the number of people they will interact with at a party they haven't been able to get out of.

These two researchers found that people who were socially anxious were able to mingle more easily with other people in social situations if they busied themselves with acts of kindness. They split their participants into three groups. One group was asked to perform three acts of kindness for two days each week. THis could be mowing a neighbours lawns, giving to charity or cooking dinner for friends. Another was asked to engage in a social interaction three times for days each week. The final group was just asked to record what they had done each day.

I know what you're thinking (and please make it clear to the IB Psychology examiner!), getting people to do acts of kindness forces those with social anxiety to go out there and interact with the people they're performing kind acts for.

TRew and Alden (2015)

Social anxiety PDF

However, these socially anxious participants in the study could perform their acts of kindness - mowing lawns, giving to charity without engaging in any social interactions whatsoever and still experience the same positive effects. In fact, the same positive effects have been found by doing something as simple as feeding coins into the expiring parking meters of strangers.

Traditional cognitive behavioural therapy works by the therapist asking her patient to imagine social situations while practicing mental relaxation techniques, to the point where they no longer feel intimidated by the thought of social interactions. This is then followed by a set of baby steps towards small scale social interaction (asking someone for the time, talking about the weather at the water cooler, etc.) while practicing the same relaxation techniques. Continuing on until the patient is comfortable in larger social situations like an office party or joining a club.

The acts of kindness study shows how cognitive behaviour therapy can be effectively and quickly modified. Social anxiety, by and large, is the result of individuals thinking about themselves too much. When they are in social situations they are monitoring their behaviour and constantly judging themselves as to how they might be being perceived by others they're interacting with. Stressful stuff. The Trew and Alden study shows that the best cognitive therapy is to get them doing nice things for others. This stops them thinking about themselves by forcing them to think of others instead. Once they're thinking about themselves less, they become naturally more relaxed in the presence of others. Boom! everyone's a winner ... the anxiety sufferers, the people receiving these acts of kindness, even you, as you receive full marks for critical thinking in your IB Psychology exam!

Do something nice for someone before you go to your next party

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Can you keep a secret?

30/5/2015

The best IB Psychology lessons involve students in classroom experiments, and here is one of my favourite all time lessons.

I am lucky at the school I teach at, having a small classroom enables me to set up this fiendishly delightful experiment. Those of you whom are overly concerned with the ethics of experimentation may like to peruse another IB Psychology blog post around about now. This experiment involves deception, subjection to social influence and some more deception ... all in the name of science and learning.

This IB Psychology classroom experiment takes some forward planning. Firstly, you need one class where a single student is absent, and this absent student should be one you know has reasonable self-esteem and is reasonably well balanced (yeah, I know, good luck Mr Burton with your crazy lot!). Suggest to the class that that you have a great in-class experiment that all can do around social influence and conformity, but you will need the help of the whole class and to be successful, it will need the entire class to be able to keep it secret from our absent student. They always answer "Yes, of course Mr Burton, and of course we can keep a secret". Surprisingly enough, in all my years of running this, there has not yet been a case of loose lips sinking this particular ship.

I then run them through the scenario and this PowerPoint embedded below. Essentially this PowerPoint is a series of 10 Maths questions, and for each the actual answer is always 2.5 million. Students are instructed that they will need to provide an answer below 2.5 million for the odd numbered questions and above 2.5 million for each even numbered question, to see what effect this will have on the answers given by our naive test subject. Will social influence cause some degree of conformity?

To set up the 'twist' on the day of the experiment, I begin by handing out one of each of the 'male body odour' and 'female cyber bulling' questions to each student and ask them to complete their answers independently. Once complete we run through the Maths questions. Each student gives their answer aloud, sequentially and the order is determined so the test subject gives her answer near last. I make a great pretense of recording everyone's answer, but only actually record the answers of interest, that of our test subject.

Only now do we reveal the true purposes of the experiment to our test subject, and in one single nod to ethical considerations, ask her if it is okay to share her results with the class. Always mentioning that if we had performed this experiment with anyone else in the class, their results would be exactly the same and very likely subject to social influence as well. No one, as yet, has declined permission. The results are robust, odd answers are invariably below 2.5 million and even answers above this number.

In terms of the IB Psychology learning outcome in the Socio-cultural Level of Analysis: Discuss factors influencing conformity, this appears to be strong support for how social influence can influence conformity to a group norm ... or is it?!

Now I collect and analyse the results to the four questions above, superficially looking like a stereotypical male/female question, however, what I am really interested in is the numbers that precede each question: 5% or 90%. Why? Well we will soon revisit the IB Psychology - Cognitive Level of Analysis learning outcome: With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent is one cognitive process reliable (for example, reconstructive memory, perception/visual illusions, decision‑making/heuristics)? And look at heuristics, specifically the anchoring bias. Without fail, my students estimates to questions anchored by 90% are hugely higher than those estimates anchored by 5%.

Obviously, in terms of social influence, this begs the question: Was it social influence that was affecting the estimates given by our target participant, or was it just the anchoring bias influencing results? Was it a social process or was it cognitive process, and can the two really be separated?

This is powerful critical thinking, something the IB Psychology examiner is always looking for in the IB Psychology ERQs, and having set the lesson up this way, when we come to look at Sherif's autokinetic effect experiment (a classic in the study of conformity), it is easy to understand, apply and remember.

Lesson. Nailed.

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Don't be tempted ...

28/4/2015

IB Psychology students spot study then cross their fingers and hope, pray to interventionist gods, bribe teachers ($10,000 minimum, please!), and so on and such forth. Every IB Psychology student has been through this, every IB Psychology teacher has tried to stop his or her students going through this.

Picture this, it’s the day of the first IB Psychology topic test of the year – the Cognitive Level of Analysis. Being a nice, kind IB Psychology teacher I have prepared a topic test which, very generously, allows the student a choice of answering one of three short answer questions (SAQs, 8 mark questions) and similarly, one of three extended response questions (ERQs, 22 mark questions). In the IB Psychology examination, there is no choice in the Paper 1 examination. Students file anxiously into the room, there is nervous chatter as they take their seats. I call for silence and distribute the test papers face down. I provide instructions and initiate the start of the test with my usual call to action … “Let’s rock and roll!”.

What follows next is a very hard lesson to learn, but it is so much better to learn it at the start of the IB Psychology course, than in the mocks (where predicted grades are often confirmed) or even worse, the final examination. Every single IB student is time poor, there are competing demands from other subjects, TOK, extended essays, CAS requirements, sports, clubs and, of course, friends and just a little bit of a social life. Revision time always has an opportunity cost.

I scan faces as my students turn their test papers over, in beautiful synchrony approximately one third of the class will raise their eyes skyward with a thankful little smile on their faces, another third will scrunch their eyes together and silently moan (perhaps a bolder one will bang her head on the desk – “Shhhh, silence!”), another third will take a deep breath, pause and dive in. One group has had their questions turn up, the other group hasn’t and the third group have studied all questions, but not memorised model answers. I could stop them right here, save

There is no choice in IB Psychology examinations

us all a lot of pain. The first group are the 7s, the second group will be very lucky to get 2s, and the third group are my 4s and 5s.

Most IB Psychology students spot study. The good ones will learn the lesson early, the not-so-good ones will continue to ride their luck or hope their luck will finally turn. They all know the questions that will be asked (there are no surprises in the IB Psychology exams, see previous post) and will learn and memorise model answers to as many of these as they have time for.

Your exams are upon you. Learn all of the model answers to one level of analysis (e.g., BLOA) in the Paper 1 exam and skip two at a maximum for each Paper 2 option (e.g., Abnormal and Human Relationships). Don’t be tempted to ride your luck or hope your luck will change – if the question you haven’t fully prepared for doesn't come up, you will completely wreck two years of hard (and interesting!) work … and, by the way, break your poor IB Psychology’s teacher’s heart in the process.

Best of luck for your IB Psychology exams (although we all know we make our own luck).

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Remember, we've taken the hard work out of your IB Psychology exams by preparing complete sets of model answers across both Paper 1 and Paper 2 exams.

IB Psychology Exam Questions

30/3/2015

Only the foolish leave the IB Psychology exams early

Your extended response answers will determine your final total mark

The IB Psychology exams consist of either Extended Response Questions (ERQs) or Short Answer Questions (SAQs). An ERQ is a 22 mark question and an SAQ is an 8 mark question in Papers 1 and 2. HL Paper 3 questions are worth just 10 marks each, but students are still required to show good knowledge and critical thinking to achieve the full 10 marks here (see an earlier post about Paper 3 answers here).

Your ability to write effective essay questions is tested to the limit in each of the three IB Psychology exams:

Paper 1 requires you to answer one ERQ and three SAQs, thus half your marks are weighted on your sole essay answer.
Paper 2 is only assessed through ERQs.
Paper 3 are a messy hybrid, three SAQs that require you to show critical thinking as well as knowledge, thus, they are worth 10 marks each.

We have previously explained that there are no surprises in the IB Psychology examinations, you will know exactly the full range of ERQ questions that can be asked (see this previous post). An ERQ can never be based on a lower level learning outcome. For example the IB Psychology Sociocultural level of analysis has the learning outcome: "Explain 'emic' and 'etic' concepts." This will never be upgraded in the IB Psychology Paper 1 exam to a "Discuss 'emic' and 'etic' concepts" or "Evaluate research into 'emic' and 'etic' concepts".

However, the SAQs can be derived from a higher order learning outcome. For example, in the Cognitive Level of Analysis we have the learning outcome: "Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process." Now this can be asked as an ERQ or downgraded to an SAQ by changing the command term. To make this an 8 mark SAQ the command term 'evaluate' can be substituted for 'explain' or 'analyse', for example. Now the SAQ may become: "Explain one model of a cognitive process."

It is important that the student doesn't become too hung up on the three SAQs in the IB Psychology Paper 1 exam. The focus should always be on learning and practicing perfect model ERQs answers. If you they know the ERQ, the SAQ can easily be adapted.

To illustrate this in action, consider the IB Psychology SCLOA learning outcome: "Discuss factors influencing conformity." An obvious candidate for an ERQ in the exam. Once the model ERQ has been learned and practiced then, come exam time, the student will be ready if this is needed to be approached in different ways for a compulsory SAQ. There are a few ways the examiners could set this question. We provide model answers for the three most likely scenarios. The key to full marks here is to know one study well and to be able to explain the three major social influence processes, which the student will be able to do if he or she has learned the model ERQ answer.

Below we have three model SAQs based on the one higher order learning outcome follow; look for the different 'tweaks' based on the same information:

1. Explain one factor that influences conformity.
Conformity can be defined as adjusting one's behaviour or thinking to match those of other people or a group standard. There are three major social influence processes which have been proposed to explain conformity, and these are informational influence, normative influence and referent informational influence. All of these explanations are, and some to a large extent, based on the influence of social norms. Social norms are group-held beliefs about how members should behave in a given context. Sociologists describe norms as informal understandings that govern society’s behaviours, while psychologists have adopted a more general definition, recognising smaller group units, like a team or an office, may also endorse norms separate or in addition to cultural or societal expectations, thus, group norms can be seen as a smaller subset of social norms. The psychological definition emphasises social norms' behavioural component, stating norms have two dimensions: how much behaviour is exhibited and how much the group approves of that behaviour.

We are subjected to informational influence when we accept the views and attitudes of others as valid evidence about how things are in a particular situation. Having an accurate perception of reality is, of course, essential for our efficient functioning in our environment. Others are often viewed as valid sources of information, especially in situations where we cannot test the validity of our perceptions, beliefs and feelings.

Informational influence seems to be the most likely explanation for Sherif’s (1935) research findings. He investigated the formation of group norms and conformity in an ambiguous situation (Sherif, 1935). This study relies on the autokinetic effect – an optical illusion that makes a stationary light appear to move when seen in complete darkness. Participants were led to believe that the experiment was investigating visual perception and told that the experimenter was going to move the light, something that was never done. The participants had to make 100 judgements as to how far the light, placed on the far wall of a darkened room, seemed to have moved.

To start with, participants made their judgements alone. Their estimates fluctuated for some time before converging towards a standard estimate, a personal norm. Such personal norms varied considerably between participants. In further sessions of 100 trials on subsequent days, the participants were joined by two other participants. They took turns in a random order to call out their estimates of the light’s movements. In this group condition, participants’ estimates soon reflected the influence of estimates from the others in the group. Eventually a common group norm emerged, a social norm, which was the average of the individual estimates. Different groups formed different group norms. Interestingly, the participants denied that their estimates were influenced by the other group members. During a third phase of the study, participants performed the task alone again; their estimates showed a continued adherence to the social norm established during the group session.

Here, because reality was ambiguous, participants used other people’s estimates as information to remove the ambiguity. Informational influence tends to produce genuine change in people’s beliefs thus leading to private conformity. Sherif’s work is important because it demonstrates how, at least in ambiguous settings, social norms can develop and become internalised (that is, function without the need of the actual presence of others). However, informational influence cannot be the only explanation for conformity, because conformity can be observed in situations where there is no ambiguity.

2. With reference to a study, explain conformity.
Conformity can be defined as adjusting one's behaviour or thinking to match those of other people or a group standard. There are lots of reasons why people conform, including the desire/need to fit in or be accepted by others and maintaining order in one’s life.

There are three major social influence processes which have been proposed to explain conformity, and these are informational influence, normative influence and referent informational influence. All of these explanations are, and some to a large extent, based on the influence of social norms. Social norms are group-held beliefs about how members should behave in a given context.

We are subjected to informational influence when we accept the views and attitudes of others as valid evidence about how things are in a particular situation. Having an accurate perception of reality is, of course, essential for our efficient functioning in our environment. Others are often viewed as valid sources of information, especially in situations where we cannot test the validity of our perceptions, beliefs and feelings.

Normative influence is another explanation of conformity. Normative influence underlies our conformity to the expectations of others. This type of influence is based on the need to be liked and accepted by others (the need to belong is one of the fundamental human motivations). In fear of social disapproval and rejection, we often behave in ways that conform to what others expect of us with little concern about the accuracy of beliefs we express or the soundness of our actions.

SIT theorists have developed the referent informational influence hypothesis, and this forms the basis of SIT explanations of conformity. From an SIT perspective, conformity is not simply a matter of adhering to just any social norms; it is more likely to do with adhering to a person’s ingroup norms. We conform out of a sense of belongingness and by doing so we form and maintain desired social identities. It follows from this that we are far more likely to conform to the norms of groups we believe we belong to and identify with.

Informational influence seems to be the most likely explanation for Sherif’s (1935) research findings. He investigated the formation of group norms and conformity in an ambiguous situation (Sherif, 1935). This study relies on the autokinetic effect – an optical illusion that makes a stationary light appear to move when seen in complete darkness. Participants were led to believe that the experiment was investigating visual perception and told that the experimenter was going to move the light, something that was never done. The participants had to make 100 judgements as to how far the light, placed on the far wall of a darkened room, seemed to have moved.

To start with, participants made their judgements alone. Their estimates fluctuated for some time before converging towards a standard estimate, a personal norm. Such personal norms varied considerably between participants. In further sessions of 100 trials on subsequent days, the participants were joined by two other participants. They took turns in a random order to call out their estimates of the light’s movements. In this group condition, participants’ estimates soon reflected the influence of estimates from the others in the group. Eventually a common group norm emerged, a social norm, which was the average of the individual estimates. Different groups formed different group norms. Interestingly, the participants denied that their estimates were influenced by the other group members. During a third phase of the study, participants performed the task alone again; their estimates showed a continued adherence to the social norm established during the group session.

3. Explain the strengths and limitations of one study on conformity
Informational influence seems to be the most likely explanation for Sherif’s (1935) research findings. He investigated the formation of group norms and conformity in an ambiguous situation (Sherif, 1935). This study relies on the autokinetic effect – an optical illusion that makes a stationary light appear to move when seen in complete darkness. Participants were led to believe that the experiment was investigating visual perception and told that the experimenter was going to move the light, something that was never done. The participants had to make 100 judgements as to how far the light, placed on the far wall of a darkened room, seemed to have moved.

To start with, participants made their judgements alone. Their estimates fluctuated for some time before converging towards a standard estimate, a personal norm. Such personal norms varied considerably between participants. In further sessions of 100 trials on subsequent days, the participants were joined by two other participants. They took turns in a random order to call out their estimates of the light’s movements. In this group condition, participants’ estimates soon reflected the influence of estimates from the others in the group. Eventually a common group norm emerged, a social norm, which was the average of the individual estimates. Different groups formed different group norms. Interestingly, the participants denied that their estimates were influenced by the other group members. During a third phase of the study, participants performed the task alone again; their estimates showed a continued adherence to the social norm established during the group session.

Here, because reality was ambiguous, participants used other people’s estimates as information to remove the ambiguity. Informational influence tends to produce genuine change in people’s beliefs thus leading to private conformity. Sherif’s work is important because it demonstrates how, at least in ambiguous settings, social norms can develop and become internalised (that is, function without the need of the actual presence of others). However, informational influence cannot be the only explanation for conformity, because conformity can be observed in situations where there is no ambiguity.

The strengths of Sherif’s study include the fact that it was pioneering and still remains one of the most influential experiments in social psychology today. It has generated a large amount of research, especially in the role of group norms on conformity behaviour. The study clearly demonstrates how a group norm can be established and then continues to influence a person’s judgement even when the social influence of the group is no longer present.

A minor limitation to this experiment surrounds the ethics of the deception involved. Participants were not informed about the purpose of the experiment (informed consent) but this was not the norm at the time of Sherif’s experiments, and the deception was arguably slight and necessary to avoid demand characteristics. Participants were debriefed at the end as to the true intents and purposes of the experiment. The major limitation is its lack of ecological validity. The task was artificial and ambiguous, and it is arguable that such ambiguous situations would never occur in real life situations. A possible counter argument to this criticism is that cognitive ‘anchoring’ can occur in our social groups. We have a tendency to use anchors or reference points to make decisions and evaluations, and sometimes these lead us astray. For example, if someone in my ingroup of girls informed me that 99% of teenage boys have body odour problems, then my perception of outgroup members on this domain will be influenced upwards towards this high initial anchor. Further, it turns out that we do not need the situation to be ambiguous for conformity to group norms to be observed.

Of course, IB Psychology has taken all of the hard work out of your model answer preparation. We have the complete IB Psychology ERQ model answers, across both Paper 1 and Paper 2 exams, as well as the complete collection of model answers to the SAQ questions likely to be asked in the Paper 1 exam.

We know you don't need reminding, but you should be well into your revision programme now. C'mon that IB Psychology 7!

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

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?"

Inattentional Blindness

Gorillas in our Midst - PDF download

Show to your IB Psychology class before you do anything else!

Daniel Simon's TED Talk

also called 'change blindness'

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

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

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.

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.

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

<<Previous

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

In IB Psychology exams, content is king

IN The IB Psychology ERQ - Great content is required

Bomb proof IB Psychology classroom experiments

Craik and Lockhart's (1972) Level of Processing

Highlighting Critical Thinking in ERQs

Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

The solution to social anxiety?

TRew and Alden (2015)

TRew and Alden (2015)

Can you keep a secret?

Don't be tempted ...

IB Psychology Exam Questions

Blind to the obvious

Change blindness

Inattentional Blindness

Daniel Simon's TED Talk

also called 'change blindness'

Abnormality is in the eye of the beholder

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

IB DipLOMA PsychologY:

Archives

Categories

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology​

IN The IB Psychology ERQ - Great content is required

Craik and Lockhart's (1972) Level of Processing

Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

TRew and Alden (2015)

TRew and Alden (2015)

Change blindness

Inattentional Blindness

Daniel Simon's TED Talk

also called 'change blindness'﻿

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

IB DipLOMA Psycho﻿logY:

Archives

Categories

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

also called 'change blindness'

IB DipLOMA PsychologY: