2023 IB DP Psychology Practice Paper with Answers

### Essay Outline

#### 1. Introduction
- **Define the disorder**: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a mood disorder characterized by persistent low mood, anhedonia, fatigue, and feelings of worthlessness.
- **Introduce biological explanations**:
- **Genetic arguments**: The idea that depression is inherited through genetic predisposition.
- **Neurochemical arguments**: The monoamine hypothesis, specifically focusing on the role of serotonin (5-HT).
- **Thesis Statement**: While biological explanations provide crucial insight and empirical support regarding the etiology of MDD, they must be understood within an interactionist framework (such as the diathesis-stress model) to avoid biological reductionism.

#### 2. Genetic Explanations of MDD
- **Theory**: Genetic inheritance models suggest that variations in specific genes increase susceptibility to MDD.
- **Key Study 1: Kendler et al. (2006)**
- **Aim**: To investigate the heritability of MDD in a large Swedish twin sample.
- **Method**: 42,161 twins assessed for lifetime MDD using DSM-IV criteria.
- **Findings**: Heritability of MDD was estimated to be around 38% overall, with higher rates in females (42%) than males (29%).
- **Conclusion**: MDD is moderately heritable, suggesting that genetics play a significant, but not exclusive, role in its development.
- **Key Study 2: Caspi et al. (2003)**
- **Aim**: To investigate whether a functional polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene moderates the influence of stressful life events on depression.
- **Method**: Longitudinal study of 847 New Zealanders. Participants were grouped based on their 5-HTT alleles (two short, one short/one long, or two long alleles).
- **Findings**: Participants with one or two short alleles who experienced multiple stressful life events exhibited more depressive symptoms and higher rates of diagnosed MDD compared to those with two long alleles.
- **Conclusion**: Genetic vulnerability (short 5-HTT alleles) interacts with environmental stress to increase the risk of depression (gene-environment interaction).

#### 3. Neurochemical Explanations (The Serotonin Hypothesis)
- **Theory**: Suggests that a deficit in the neurotransmitter serotonin in the synaptic cleft leads to the symptoms of depression.
- **Evidence**: Supported by the efficacy of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) like fluoxetine (Prozac), which increase serotonin availability in the synapse and alleviate depressive symptoms for many patients.

#### 4. Critical Evaluation of Biological Explanations
- **Strengths**:
- Strong empirical support from large-scale twin studies and molecular genetics.
- Practical application: Led to highly effective pharmacological treatments (SSRIs), reducing the stigma of depression by reframing it as a physiological illness.
- **Limitations**:
- **Treatment-Etiology Fallacy**: Assuming that because SSRIs alleviate symptoms by raising serotonin, a lack of serotonin must have caused the disorder. This is like assuming a headache is caused by a lack of aspirin.
- **Reductionism**: Biological explanations often ignore cognitive factors (e.g., Beck's cognitive triad) and sociocultural factors (e.g., poverty, chronic stress, isolation).
- **Bidirectional Ambiguity**: It is difficult to determine whether chemical imbalances cause depressive thoughts, or whether prolonged negative thinking patterns alter brain chemistry.
- **Incompleteness**: Low heritability rates (around 38%) mean that more than half of the variance in MDD is accounted for by environmental factors.

#### 5. Conclusion
- Conclude that biological explanations are essential for identifying vulnerabilities and developing medical treatments, but they are insufficient on their own. A holistic approach (biopsychosocial model) that integrates genetic predisposition with cognitive vulnerability and environmental stressors is required for a complete understanding of depression.

### IB Psychology ERQ Rubric (22 Marks)

#### Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: The response is fully focused on the question, clearly evaluating one or more biological explanations (genetic/neurochemical) of MDD throughout.
- **1 mark**: The response identifies biological explanations but lacks consistent focus on evaluating them, or discusses a non-depressive disorder.

#### Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: Detailed and accurate knowledge of biological explanations (e.g., 5-HTT gene, serotonin hypothesis) and relevant concepts (e.g., heritability, diathesis-stress model) is demonstrated.
- **3-4 marks**: Good knowledge is demonstrated, but there may be some minor inaccuracies or omissions in describing the biological mechanisms.
- **1-2 marks**: Limited or superficial knowledge of biological explanations.
- **0 marks**: No relevant knowledge demonstrated.

#### Criterion C: Use of research (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: Relevant research (such as Kendler et al. or Caspi et al.) is used effectively and accurately to support the explanation. The studies are described and explicitly linked to the essay's arguments.
- **3-4 marks**: Relevant research is cited, but description is incomplete or the link to the explanation is weak.
- **1-2 marks**: Research is mentioned but is highly inaccurate, irrelevant, or lacks detail.

#### Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: Reflects a well-developed evaluation of the biological explanations. Evaluative points (e.g., reductionism, treatment-etiology fallacy, bidirectional ambiguity, gene-environment interactions) are well-developed and balanced.
- **3-4 marks**: Some evaluation is present (e.g., strengths and limitations), but it tends to be descriptive or relies on pre-packaged evaluation points without deep synthesis.
- **1-2 marks**: Evaluation is superficial, generic (e.g., "this study has low ecological validity" without explanation), or missing.

#### Criterion E: Clarity and organization (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: The essay is well-structured, logical, and uses appropriate psychological terminology throughout.
- **1 mark**: The essay has some structure but lacks flow, or psychological terminology is used inappropriately.

### Essay Outline

#### 1. Introduction
- **Define relationship maintenance**: The behaviors and processes couples use to keep a relationship in a specified state of existence, satisfaction, and commitment.
- **Introduce the role of communication**: Communication is the bedrock of personal relationships; it can be positive (fostering intimacy through self-disclosure) or negative (eroding trust through destructive conflict styles).
- **Identify Key Theories/Models**:
- **Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973)** and the role of self-disclosure.
- **Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse** (conflict communication styles).

#### 2. Positive Communication: Self-Disclosure
- **Theory**: Social Penetration Theory suggests that relationships develop as communication moves from shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more personal levels (the "onion" metaphor). Maintenance requires ongoing, reciprocal self-disclosure to sustain intimacy and trust.
- **Supporting Study: Collins and Miller (1994)**
- **Aim**: To conduct a meta-analysis on the relationship between self-disclosure and liking.
- **Findings**: They found three main effects: (1) people who engage in intimate disclosures are more liked than those who disclose at lower levels, (2) people disclose more to those whom they initially like, and (3) people like others as a result of having disclosed to them.
- **Link**: This suggests that reciprocal self-disclosure is key to maintaining positive affect and closeness in relationships.

#### 3. Negative Communication: Gottman's Four Horsemen
- **Theory**: John Gottman proposed that the *way* couples communicate during conflict predicts relationship dissolution. He identified four destructive communication patterns:
1. **Criticism**: Attacking the partner's character rather than a specific behavior.
2. **Contempt**: Communicating with mock or sarcasm, showing disrespect/superiority (the strongest predictor of divorce).
3. **Defensiveness**: Making excuses and playing the victim to avoid taking responsibility.
4. **Stonewalling**: Withdrawing from interaction, shutting down, and ignoring the partner.
- **Supporting Study: Gottman and Levenson (1992)**
- **Aim**: To investigate how communication patterns predict relationship stability/divorce.
- **Method**: Longitudinal study observing couples solving a conflict in a laboratory setting. Physiological measures and video coding of communication were used.
- **Findings**: The presence of the Four Horsemen, especially contempt, predicted divorce with high accuracy (over 90% accuracy across longitudinal follow-ups).
- **Link**: This demonstrates that destructive communication actively undermines relationship maintenance.

#### 4. Discussion / Critical Evaluation
- **Methodological Considerations**:
- Gottman's research relies heavily on observation in artificial lab settings (low ecological validity), though long-term follow-ups provide robust predictive power.
- Much research on self-disclosure is correlational; we cannot definitively state that high self-disclosure *causes* relationship satisfaction, as happy couples might simply choose to disclose more (bidirectional ambiguity).
- **Cultural Variations**:
- Social Penetration Theory has an individualistic bias. In collectivistic cultures, deep self-disclosure of personal emotions may not be seen as essential for relationship maintenance, and maintaining group harmony or family expectations may play a larger role.
- **Gender Differences**:
- Women tend to disclose more than men and value verbal self-disclosure more for relationship maintenance, whereas men may show maintenance through shared activities.

#### 5. Conclusion
- Conclude that communication is a dynamic factor in relationship maintenance. While positive, deep communication (self-disclosure) builds and sustains the foundation of a relationship, the management of negative communication (avoiding Gottman's Four Horsemen) is equally vital to prevent dissolution. A complete understanding of maintenance must consider cultural and individual variations in communication styles.

### IB Psychology ERQ Rubric (22 Marks)

#### Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: The response is fully focused on the question, consistently discussing the role of communication in the maintenance (and/or dissolution) of personal relationships.
- **1 mark**: The response is partially focused, perhaps drifting into the *formation* of relationships or general relationship theories without a clear focus on communication.

#### Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: Excellent knowledge of communication theories (e.g., Social Penetration Theory, Gottman's Four Horsemen) and concepts (self-disclosure, conflict resolution styles) is shown.
- **3-4 marks**: Good knowledge of communication in relationships is demonstrated, but descriptions may lack depth or contains minor errors.
- **1-2 marks**: Limited or highly superficial knowledge of communication factors is present.

#### Criterion C: Use of research (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: Relevant research (e.g., Collins & Miller, Gottman & Levenson) is described accurately, and its relevance to how communication maintains relationships is clearly explained.
- **3-4 marks**: Relevant research is cited, but details of the studies are sparse, or the connection to relationship maintenance is not fully developed.
- **1-2 marks**: Minimal or highly inaccurate use of research.

#### Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)
- **5-6 marks**: The response shows sophisticated critical evaluation. Points such as correlational vs. causal claims, methodological strengths/limitations of Gottman's research, gender dynamics, and cultural variations in communication are well-integrated and argued.
- **3-4 marks**: Evaluation is present but may be superficial, generic, or rely heavily on a list of pros/cons without synthesizing their impact on the overall argument.
- **1-2 marks**: Little to no critical thinking/evaluation is demonstrated.

#### Criterion E: Clarity and organization (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: The essay is well-structured, flows logically, and uses appropriate psychological terms correctly throughout.
- **1 mark**: The essay has some structure but lacks coherence or contains frequent terminology errors.