카테고리: Learning Outcomes

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

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

Examination fish hooks

31/8/2014

Comments

Some nasty little surprises lying in wait to hook the unwary

Another IB Psychology student caught by surprise

Imagine writing what you think is the perfect response to a short answer question in your IB Psychology examination only to have a single sentence of your answer penalise you 50 per cent of the marks on offer. There are some very odd requirements that IB Psychology examiners must follow, and this can be infuriating for inexperienced IB Psychology teachers and unwary students.

A frequently posed exam question relates to the principles that govern each of the three levels of analysis: The Biological, Cognitive and Socio-Cultural levels of analysis. There are always three different principles that govern each of these levels of analysis. For example, in the Biological Level of Analysis the three principles are: (i) there are biological correlates of behaviour, (ii) animal research can provide insight into human behaviour, and (iii) human behaviour is, to some extent, genetically based. The exam question that is often asked will ask you to outline, describe or explain one or two of these principles (e.g., Outline two principles that govern the Biological Level of Analysis.).

Now students being students, and human nature being human nature, we have a need to show our examiners how intelligent we are; exams are our time to showcase the knowledge we have accumulated over the last two years. So we begin our short answer responses ... "There are three principles that govern the Biological Level of Analysis, and these are (i) there are biological correlates of behaviour, (ii) animal research can provide insight into human behaviour, and (iii) human behaviour is, to some extent, genetically based. ... " before going on to outline the second and third of these stated principles. Here the examiner face palms herself. Literally. The IB Psychology examination board has decided in their infinite wisdom that the first two principles that are mentioned in a student responses are the ones they have to be graded on. Thus the student picks up zero marks for the first principle because she hasn't outlined it, and zero marks for the third principle as the examiners consider it superfluous - the examiner has to focus on the first two principles mentioned in the response. A response worthy of the full 8 marks gets hammered down to a 3 or a 4. Yes, very, very pedantic!

Below, we present a model short answer question (SAQ) response that will be awarded the full 8 marks.

IB Psychology: The Biological Level of analysis
A model short answer question (SAQ) response to the examination question: Outline principles that define the biological level of analysis.

SAQ: Outline principles that define the biological level of analysis
Biological psychology is a branch or type of psychology that brings together biology and psychology to understand behaviour and thought. Biological psychology looks at the link between biology and psychological events such as how information travels throughout our bodies (neural impulses, axons, dendrites, etc.), how different neurotransmitters effect behaviours. There are three principles that define the biological level of analysis which will each be covered, in turn.

Principle 1: There are biological correlates of behaviour. This means that there are physiological origins of behaviour such as neurotransmitters, hormones, specialised brain areas, and genes. The biological level of analysis is based on reductionism, which is the attempt to explain complex behaviour in terms of simple causes.

Principle 1 demonstrated in: Newcomer et al. (1999) performed an experiment on the role of the stress hormone cortisol on verbal declarative memory. Group 1 (high dose cortisol) had tablets containing 160 mg of cortisol for four days. Group 2 (low dose cortisol) had tablets with 40 mg of cortisol for four days. Group 3 (control) had placebo tablets. Participants listened to a prose paragraph and had to recall it as a test of verbal declarative memory. This memory system is often negatively affected by the increased level of cortisol under long-term stress. The results showed that group 1 showed the worst performance on the memory test compared to group 2 and 3. The experiment shows that an increase in cortisol over a period has a negative effect on memory.

Principle 2: Animal research can provide insight into human behaviour. This means that researchers use animals to study physiological processes because it is assumed that most biological processes in non-human animals are the same as in humans. One important reason for using animals is that there is a lot of research where humans cannot be used for ethical reasons.

Principle 2 demonstrated in: Rosenzweig and Bennet (1972) performed an experiment to study the role of environmental factors on brain plasticity using rats as participants. Group 1 was placed in an enriched environment with lots of toys. Group 2 was placed in a deprived environment with no toys. The rats spent 30 or 60 days in their respective environments before being killed. The brains of the rats in group 1 showed a thicker layer of neurons in the cortex compared to the deprived group. The study shows that the brain grows more neurons if stimulated.

Principle 3: Human behaviour is, to some extent, genetically based. This means that behaviour can, to some extent, be explained by genetic inheritance, although this is rarely the full explanation since genetic inheritance should be seen as genetic predisposition which can be affected by environmental factors.

Researchers interested in the genetic origin of behaviour often use twins so that they can compare one twin with the other on a variable such as intelligence, depression or anorexia nervosa.
Identical twins (monozygotic twins – MZ) are 100% genetically identical as they have developed from the same egg. They therefore act as a control for each other. Fraternal twins (dizygotic twins – DZ) have developed from two different eggs. They share around 50% of their genes so they are no more similar than siblings.
Twin research never shows a 100% concordance rate so it is believed that genes are a predisposing factor rather than the cause of behaviour. Therefore it is also important to consider what environmental factors could influence the expression of the genetic predisposition.

Principle 3 demonstrated in: Bouchard et al. (1990) performed the Minnesota twin study, a longitudinal study investigating the relative role of genes in IQ. The participants were MZ reared apart (MZA) and MZ reared together (MZT). The researchers found that MZT had a concordance rate of IQ of 86% compared to MZA with a concordance rate of IQ of 76%. This shows a link between genetic inheritance and intelligence but it does not rule out the role of the environment.

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

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

Shine a light on me

6/5/2014

Comments

Hate being in the spotlight? Relax, no one is watching.

We are talking anxiety disorders. People with a social phobia tend to fret about being noticed by others. It is not actually being noticed that leads to stress and anxiety, it is the fear of being judged by others that can cause the onset of a panic attack.

The most interesting IB Psychology option available to us is our Abnormal Option (not doing this one? berate your terrible Psychology teacher!). And within Abnormal, we can study anxiety disorders as one of our three groups of disorders: anxiety, affective and eating disorders. Again, a pretty interesting route to explore. For example, I'm sure you are all high achieving IB Psychology students and as such could have a degree of atychiphobia - the fear of failure!

Social phobias are our most prevalent anxiety disorders. Who out there is not just a little bit anxious about getting up on a stage and addressing an audience - having the spotlight shone upon us to be judged? A teacher might just be immune perhaps? ...

Discussing the 'Spotlight Effect'

We tend to vastly overestimate how much attention other people are paying to us. This snippet of a Freakanomics podcast below is an entertaining discussion about the spotlight effect. Honestly, we''re only the centre of our own universes, not everyone elses'.

Psychology in everyday life. One of the things about devoting a rather large proportion of my life to the study and teaching of Psychology is that I'm very much aware of the many, many cognitive biases that we have. Sometimes I find myself in the midst of a particular situation where I'll suddenly think, "hang on! didn't I read a study about this somewhere?"

As if being a teacher doesn't put me out in front of literally hundreds of people each day, the classroom I teach in tends to accentuate the fact I'm up in front of my students, ahem, performing. My classroom used to be the old music room and I have this little stage to teach from, hopping up and down as the lesson dictates; down to students, up to the whiteboard, computer and projector.

Today in class, in front of my lovely, lovely Year 11s I took a dive off my 'stage' . Hilarious! Much, much better than the time I tripped over my laptop chord and brought everything crashing down around me. This was all fine, after a number of near mishaps I had resigned myself to the fact that this was an inevitability. I've been preparing for this for the last two years and as a teacher I'm used to my students laughing at (surely with?) me, so finding myself the sudden and undignified centre of attention wasn't what interested me. I picked myself up, shrugged off the laughter of twenty giggling school girls and went to help answer a student's question, admittedly, a little redder than usual.

What piqued my psychological interest wasn't the glare of unwanted attention from my stage dive, it was the fact that I now had a rather large rip across one knee of my trousers. Which, I might add, I had only just got back from the drycleaners having spent $15. What suddenly gave me pause for thought was this: Am I suddenly in the middle of the Barry Manilow t-shirt experiment?

In Gilovich et al.'s (2000) classic experiment ''Barry Manilow t-shirt experiment', participants were misinformed that they were in an experiment which aimed to examine memory. Memory for details about other people. First, picture this. Assume you are not a 12 year old girl and someone has asked you to put on a t-shirt with a big Justin Bieber face on it, walk through a door and briefly face a room full of complete strangers before exiting the room. The spotlight was on them, they were probably self-conscious enough already and now they had to wear this ridiculous t-shirt in front of a group of peers without being able to explain themselves. Fantastic! You have to love Psychology experiments.

The Spotlight Effect

The original journal article on the spotlight effect on social judgement - Gilovich et al. (2000).

PDF Download Gilovich et al. (2000)

The Justin Bieber of his generation?

The experimenters were interested in comparing two things. Firstly, an estimate from participant as to how many of the other participants would have noticed they were actually wearing an embarrassing Barry Manilow t-shirt. Gilovich wanted to then compare this estimate to the number of observing participants who had actually noticed the t-shirt.

By now, you will be able to take a pretty good stab at the results. Wearing an embarrassing t-shirt made participants very self-conscious, and being self-conscious vastly inflated overestimations of other people being aware of the ridiculous t-shirt. The assumption was that almost all of the observing participants would have noticed. The reality was that when questioned, hardly any of these observing participants could recall the t-shirt when prompted. No one notices the embarrassing stuff. I'll repeat that, because it is enormously liberating ... No. One. Notices. The. Embarrassing. Stuff.

Humans are highly, highly social beings. Evolution has shaped us to be able to think about what other people are thinking about us. This ability to 'read minds' helps us function is social situations. We know it is not OK to eat with our mouths open because other people will think badly of us. We know it is good to make others laugh, we will be socially accepted and more readily able to belong to our ingroups. And we know, for sure, that it is not OK to wear a Justin Bieber t-shirt, because we will be shunned by others if we do. It turns out that we are terrible mind readers, at least in situations where we think we have made fools of ourselves.

Anyway, back to the classroom. Ripped trousers a bit embarrassing, yes. After all, have you ever had the pleasure of being taught by a teacher wearing nice shiny shoes, a crisp shirt (this was only second period), nice tie ... and a massive big rip across the knee of his nice dress trousers? No? I didn't really think so.

However, armed with my Psychology, I knew that, apart from significant numbers of students in my initial stage-diving class, almost no one else I encountered that day would notice that I was dressed like a fool. Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. With this knowledge I was free to roam the corridors, teach my classes and sit down and chat naturally with my colleagues in the teachers' lounge.

Yeah, you might think. First chance I got, I gapped it home to change ...

Every normal person, in fact, is only normal on the average. His ego approximates to that of the psychotic in some part or other and to a greater or lesser extent. - Sigmund Freud

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

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:

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

IB Psychology: We love you Number 7!

The IB Psychology Exam Questions are the Learning Outcomes

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.

Summary Notes PDF Download

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

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

Highlighting Critical Thinking in ERQs

Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

Examination fish hooks

Blind to the obvious

Change blindness

Inattentional Blindness

Daniel Simon's TED Talk

also called 'change blindness'

Shine a light on me

The Spotlight Effect

Abnormality is in the eye of the beholder

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

Structure, Order, Routine.

ERQ Model Answer Template

SAQ MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATE

The Secret 7

The IB Psychology Exam Questions are the Learning Outcomes

IB DipLOMA PsychologY:

Archives

Categories

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology​

IN The IB Psychology ERQ - Great content is required

Discuss the role of communication in the maintenance of relationships.

Change blindness

Inattentional Blindness

Daniel Simon's TED Talk

also called 'change blindness'﻿

The Spotlight Effect

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

ERQ Model Answer Template

SAQ MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATE

The IB Psychology Exam Questions are the Learning Outcomes

IB DipLOMA Psycho﻿logY:

Archives

Categories

How to get a 7 in IB Psychology

also called 'change blindness'

IB DipLOMA PsychologY: