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

Examination fish hooks

31/8/2014

Comments

 
Some nasty little surprises lying in wait to hook the unwary
PictureAnother 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
Picture

Change blindness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inattentional Blindness

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

Daniel Simon's TED Talk


Picture

also called 'change blindness'

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology


Comments

Don't Panic! - SAQs are Easy

30/6/2014

Comments

 
Describe one interaction between cognition and physiology in terms of behaviour. 
The example used comes from the IB Psychology Abnormal option with regard to anxiety disorders. The sample SAQ should be awarded full marks. However, remember that Paper 2 IB Psychology examination questions will never be asked as SAQs, you only answer one 22 mark ERQ.
Picture
One way in which cognition and physiology interact in behaviour has been seen in studies of panic attacks. Clark (1996) argues that panic attacks are the result of a catastrophic misinterpretation of stimuli. When there is an environmental stimulus - for example, a loud noise - the heart may begin to beat faster in response. This is a result of the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, preparing the body for possible fight or flight. When the heart begins to beat faster, the person may then begin to think "why is my heart beating faster?"

Clark's theory is that people whose schema interpret bodily changes as dangerous or "scary," will begin to interpret the increase in heart-rate negatively. This then leads to a further increase in heart-rate, which then increases the concern. This is a positive feedback loop. The physiology affects the cognition and the cognition affects the physiology, resulting in a panic attack. 
Telch & Harrington (1992) did a study with a group of university students. Each student was given a written test to see their level of anxiety with regard to health and wellness. All participants took part in two trials. In the first trial, they were asked to breathe room air. In the second trial, they were asked to breathe air with high levels of CO2. The participants were told that the air would make them feel relaxed. In the "room air" group, no one felt aroused, in spite of their score on the anxiety test. However, when asked to breathe in CO2, in the low anxiety group 5% experienced high arousal whereas 52% of the high anxiety group did. In other words, it was the interaction of high anxiety schema and physiological responses to stimuli that lead to the panic response.

panic attack! - It's not pretty


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? ...
Picture
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)
Picture
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

Black thoughts, black boxes and black magic

23/4/2014

Comments

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

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

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

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

ARe America's Children Over-medicated?

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

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

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

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Black Magic - The Placebo Effect


Antidepressants are placebos


Black box warnings 

side effects of SSRIs on children

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

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

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

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

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


Comments

Abnormality is in the eye of the beholder

14/4/2014

Comments

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

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


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


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

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

short videos examining concepts of mental illness and abnormality


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

Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

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

Picture
Examine concepts of normality and abnormality

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

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

Defining normality

Mental health model of normality (Jahoda, 1958)

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

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

Evaluation of the mental health model of normality

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

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

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

Defining abnormality

The mental illness criterion (the medical model)

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

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

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

Rosenhahn (1973) – on being sane in insane places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the mental illness criterion

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

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

Abnormality as statistical deviation from the norm

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

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

Evaluation of the statistical criterion

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

Abnormality as deviation from social norms

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

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

Evaluation of the deviation from statistical norms criterion

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

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

General conclusion

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

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


Comments

Don't Just Stand There, Do Something!

26/3/2014

Comments

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

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

Examine factors influencing bystanderism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subway Samaritan (Pilliavin, 1969)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General conclusion

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

Word count: 2 000

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

Model IB Psychology  ERQ Answer

Comments

Sweaty Opposites

18/3/2014

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture

A reenactment of the sweaty t-shirt study 

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

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

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

Picture

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

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Structure, Order, Routine.

10/3/2014

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

ERQ Model Answer Template

SAQ MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATE

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Short. Sharp. Sweet.

5/3/2014

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    IB DipLOMA PsychologY:

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

    Archives

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


    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

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