2023 IB DP Psychology 模擬試題連答案詳解

An antagonist is a chemical substance that binds to a receptor site of a neuron and prevents or dampens a biological response by blocking a neurotransmitter from binding. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter heavily involved in learning and memory, specifically spatial memory. Scopolamine acts as an antagonist for acetylcholine by blocking its receptors in the brain. To investigate this effect, Antonova et al. (2011) conducted a double-blind, repeated measures experiment with 20 healthy male participants. Participants were injected with either scopolamine or a placebo before undergoing an fMRI scan while playing the 'Arena task'—a virtual reality game where they had to navigate an arena to find a hidden pole. After finding the pole, the screen went blank, and they were placed at a new starting point and had to find the pole again. Six weeks later, they returned and received the opposite treatment. The results showed that when participants were injected with scopolamine, they demonstrated a significant reduction in activation of the hippocampus compared to when they received the placebo. They also made more errors while trying to navigate the arena. This suggests that acetylcholine plays an essential role in the encoding of spatial memory, and by blocking acetylcholine receptors, the antagonist scopolamine successfully impairs the activation of the hippocampus and the formation of spatial memories in humans.

Marks 1-3: The response demonstrates accurate and detailed knowledge of what an antagonist is and how it affects human behaviour, identifying a specific antagonist (scopolamine) and neurotransmitter (acetylcholine). Marks 4-6: The response describes a relevant study (Antonova et al., 2011) with accurate details regarding the aim, method, results, and conclusion. Marks 7-9: The response provides a clear, focused explanation of how the study demonstrates the effect of the antagonist on human behaviour, explicitly linking the blocking of acetylcholine receptors to impaired hippocampal activity and spatial memory deficits.

The Dual-Process Model of thinking and decision-making, proposed by Kahneman and Tversky, suggests that cognitive processing can be divided into two distinct systems. System 1 is automatic, fast, unconscious, and relies on heuristics or mental shortcuts, making it efficient but prone to errors. System 2 is controlled, slow, conscious, and logical, requiring active effort and cognitive capacity. The model suggests that although System 2 is capable of correcting System 1 errors, humans often default to System 1 to save cognitive energy. This model is supported by Wason (1968) in the Wason Selection Task. In this study, participants were shown four cards (e.g., A, K, 4, 7) and given a rule: 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' They were asked which cards they needed to turn over to test if the rule was true. The correct logical answer is to turn over the 'A' card (to see if there is an even number, confirming the rule) and the '7' card (to ensure there is no vowel, falsifying the rule). However, Wason found that most participants chose 'A' and '4' (or just 'A'). Choosing '4' is an error because an even number can have a consonant on the other side without violating the rule. This error is explained by matching bias, a System 1 heuristic where participants automatically select the items mentioned in the rule. The study demonstrates that when faced with abstract logic tasks, people tend to rely on the fast, intuitive System 1 processing rather than engaging the slower, analytical System 2 processing, because System 2 requires active cognitive effort.

Marks 1-3: The response shows accurate knowledge and understanding of the Dual-Process Model, including descriptions of System 1 and System 2 thinking. Marks 4-6: A relevant study (Wason, 1968) is accurately described, including its aim, procedure, results, and conclusion. Marks 7-9: The response provides a focused explanation of how the study illustrates the model, showing a clear connection between matching bias, the default reliance on System 1, and the difficulty of activating System 2 logic.

Social Identity Theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner, explains how an individual's self-concept and self-esteem are derived from their perceived membership in social groups. The theory rests on several key mechanisms: social categorization (dividing the world into 'in-groups' to which we belong and 'out-groups' to which we do not), social identification (adopting the values and behaviors of the in-group), social comparison (evaluating the in-group against out-groups), and positive distinctiveness (the motivation to show that the in-group is superior to the out-group to elevate self-esteem). This theory is supported by Tajfel et al. (1971) in their minimal group experiments. British schoolboys were randomly assigned to groups based on trivial criteria, such as whether they overestimated or underestimated dots in a visual task, or their preference for the paintings of Klee or Kandinsky. The boys were then asked to allocate points (which represented real money) to other boys using matrix booklets. The boys only knew the group identity of the recipients, not their names. The results showed a strong tendency for in-group favoritism: boys allocated more points to members of their own group. Most importantly, when given options, they chose matrices that maximized the difference between the two groups, even if it meant giving their own in-group fewer absolute points. This demonstrates positive distinctiveness: the desire to establish group superiority over the out-group was more important than maximizing absolute wealth. The study shows that simple, minimal categorization into groups is sufficient to trigger in-group bias and out-group discrimination, providing empirical support for the foundational mechanisms of Social Identity Theory.

Marks 1-3: The response demonstrates accurate and detailed understanding of Social Identity Theory and its key mechanisms (e.g., social categorization, social comparison, positive distinctiveness). Marks 4-6: The response accurately describes Tajfel et al.'s (1971) minimal group study, detailing the aim, method, results, and conclusion. Marks 7-9: The response provides a clear, focused link showing how the study's findings (such as maximizing the difference between groups) demonstrate positive distinctiveness and support Social Identity Theory.

### Model Response Outline

1. Introduction
- Define Schema: A cognitive schema is a mental representation of knowledge, experiences, and expectations about world objects, people, or situations stored in long-term memory.
- Define Schema Theory: Suggests that our mind actively processes incoming information by integrating it with existing knowledge schemas. This influences how we encode, store, and retrieve information.
- Thesis Statement: Schema theory is a powerful framework for explaining reconstructive memory, though the concept of a 'schema' itself has been criticized for being too vague and difficult to observe directly.

2. Theoretical Explanation of Schema Theory
- Explain how schemas function as 'shortcuts' to save cognitive energy (cognitive misers).
- Discuss the stages of memory affected by schemas:
- Encoding: Schemas guide attention to schema-consistent or highly unexpected information.
- Storage: Schemas help organize information logically.
- Retrieval: When gaps exist in memory, schemas 'fill in' the missing details (reconstruction).
- Mention terms such as scripts (schemas for events) and assimilation/accommodation.

3. Empirical Support 1: Brewer and Treyens (1981)
- Aim: To investigate whether people's memory for objects in an office is influenced by their existing office schemas.
- Method: Participants were left in an office for 35 seconds containing both schema-consistent items (desk, typewriter) and schema-inconsistent items (a skull, a bark basket), as well as missing schema-consistent items (books). They were then asked to write down everything they remembered.
- Results: Participants were highly likely to recall schema-consistent items, even if they were not there (e.g., books). They also recalled the unusual schema-inconsistent items (e.g., skull), showing that schemas distort recall toward expectations but highly unusual items can also stand out.
- Link to Theory: Supports the claim that schemas guide reconstructive memory during retrieval.

4. Empirical Support 2: Bartlett (1932) - "War of the Ghosts"
- Aim: To investigate how memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge (cultural schemas).
- Method: British participants read a Native American folk tale with unfamiliar concepts. They used serial reproduction or repeated reproduction to recall the story.
- Results: The story became shorter, more conventional, and more aligned with British cultural expectations. Cultural adaptations included changing "canoes" to "boats" and "hunting seals" to "fishing" (assimilation).
- Link to Theory: Demonstrates that memory is not a passive tape recorder but an active reconstruction process influenced by pre-existing cultural schemas.

5. Evaluation of Schema Theory
- Strengths:
- Robust empirical support: Supported by numerous lab and field experiments.
- Practical applications: Explains reconstructive memory errors (eyewitness testimony), stereotyping, and educational learning strategies.
- Heuristic value: Highly influential in cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, and clinical therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy).
- Limitations:
- Methodological issues: Many studies (like Bartlett) lacked strict control groups or standardized instructions, though later studies replicated the core findings.
- Construct validity: The concept of a 'schema' is highly abstract and cannot be directly observed; some critics (e.g., Cohen, 1993) argue it is too vague to explain specific neurological mechanisms.
- Over-emphasis on inaccuracies: Schema theory focuses heavily on memory errors, potentially underestimating the overall accuracy of human memory in real-world contexts.

6. Conclusion
- Summarize the main points. Emphasize that despite its limitations regarding direct observation, schema theory remains a fundamental model for understanding how human cognition reconstructs the past.

### Marking Rubric (22 Marks)

Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The response is fully focused on the demand of the question (discussing schema theory in relation to cognitive processes like memory). There is a clear and sustained thread of argument throughout.
- 1 mark: The response is partially focused on the question, or has tangential discussions.

Criterion B: Knowledge and comprehension (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Detailed, highly accurate knowledge of schema theory (including schemas, scripts, encoding/retrieval processes) is demonstrated. Concepts are defined clearly and accurately.
- 3-4 marks: Good knowledge of the theory is demonstrated, but there may be minor inaccuracies, omissions, or a lack of depth in explaining how schemas operate.
- 1-2 marks: Limited or highly superficial knowledge of schema theory.

Criterion C: Use of research (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Relevant studies (e.g., Brewer & Treyens, Bartlett, Bransford & Johnson) are described accurately (aims, methods, findings) and explicitly linked to the demands of the question (how they demonstrate schema theory).
- 3-4 marks: Relevant studies are described, but details may be missing or inaccurate. The link between the studies and the theory is present but weak.
- 1-2 marks: Studies are mentioned but lack detail, are highly inaccurate, or are completely descriptive without integration.

Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Critical evaluation is well-developed, balanced, and sophisticated. It evaluates both the theory (strengths/limitations, construct validity) and the research studies (methodology, ecological validity).
- 3-4 marks: Critical evaluation is present but limited or generic (e.g., generic 'lab experiment lacks ecological validity' comments without deep integration into schema theory's construct limitations).
- 1-2 marks: Very limited or absent critical thinking.

Criterion E: Clarity and organization (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The essay is well-structured, coherent, and uses precise psychological terminology.
- 1 mark: The essay is somewhat organized but lacks a clear logical flow or consistent terminology.