2023 IB DP Psychology 模擬試題連答案詳解

One gene that has been shown to play a role in human behaviour is the 5-HTT gene, which is associated with the development of major depressive disorder (depression) in response to environmental stressors. The 5-HTT gene codes for the serotonin transporter protein, which regulates the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft. The gene has two primary alleles: the long allele (associated with more efficient serotonin reuptake) and the short allele (associated with less efficient serotonin reuptake and reduced resilience to stress).

A key study investigating this relationship is Caspi et al. (2003). The researchers aimed to determine whether there is an interaction between the 5-HTT gene and life stress in predicting depression. The study utilized a longitudinal design with a sample of 847 New Zealand participants, who were divided into three groups based on their 5-HTT alleles: Group 1 had two short alleles (s/s), Group 2 had one short and one long allele (s/l), and Group 3 had two long alleles (l/l). The participants' life events between the ages of 21 and 26 were assessed using a life-history calendar, and depression symptoms were evaluated at age 26.

The results showed that participants with one or more short alleles (s/s or s/l) who experienced multiple stressful life events demonstrated a significant increase in depressive symptoms, diagnosed depression, and suicidal ideation compared to participants with two long alleles (l/l) who experienced similar levels of stress. Participants with two long alleles showed no significant increase in depression, even when exposed to multiple stressful life events.

This study demonstrates that the 5-HTT gene does not directly cause depression, but rather moderates an individual's vulnerability to environmental stressors. Individuals carrying the short allele are genetically predisposed to be more sensitive to stress, illustrating the gene-environment interaction (diathesis-stress model) in shaping human behaviour.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **1 to 3 marks**: The response demonstrates limited understanding of the role of a gene on behaviour. The gene or behaviour may not be clearly identified, or the study description is highly inaccurate or missing.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response identifies a gene (5-HTT) and a behaviour (depression) but the explanation of the link is basic or lacks detail. A relevant study (Caspi et al., 2003) is described, but its integration with the explanation is weak or incomplete.
- **7 to 9 marks**: The response is well-focused and demonstrates highly accurate knowledge. The biological mechanism of the gene (5-HTT's role in serotonin reuptake) is clearly explained in relation to the behaviour (depression). The study by Caspi et al. (2003) is described accurately (aim, method, findings) and is explicitly and effectively linked to show how the gene influences behaviour.

One bias in thinking and decision-making is anchoring bias. This bias occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions or estimates, even if that anchor is completely arbitrary or irrelevant to the actual decision.

According to dual-process theory, anchoring bias occurs because we rely on System 1 thinking—which is fast, automatic, and relies on heuristics—to make quick judgments rather than engaging in slow, analytical System 2 thinking. When presented with an anchor, our minds use it as a starting point and adjust from there, but the adjustment is typically insufficient, leaving the final decision disproportionately close to the initial anchor.

A classic study demonstrating this bias is Tversky and Kahneman (1974). In this lab experiment, participants were asked to estimate the percentage of African nations in the United Nations. Before giving their estimate, a wheel of fortune was spun in front of them, which was secretly rigged to stop either on the number 10 or the number 65. Participants were first asked to state whether the actual percentage was higher or lower than the number on the wheel, and then to estimate the actual percentage.

The researchers found that the arbitrary number from the wheel of fortune significantly biased the participants' estimates. The group that received "10" as an anchor gave a median estimate of 25%, while the group that received "65" as an anchor gave a median estimate of 45%. Despite knowing that the wheel of fortune was completely random, participants' decision-making was heavily influenced by the initial numerical anchor.

This study clearly illustrates anchoring bias by demonstrating how a completely irrelevant, random number can serve as a mental anchor, causing systematic errors in human estimation and decision-making.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **1 to 3 marks**: The response defines a bias poorly or incorrectly. The study is either missing, irrelevant, or lacks description.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response correctly identifies and defines a bias (anchoring) and outlines its mechanism. A relevant study (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) is described, but the link explaining *how* the study demonstrates the bias is superficial.
- **7 to 9 marks**: The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of anchoring bias (referencing System 1 thinking or mental adjustment). The study (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) is accurately described (aim, procedure, results) and explicitly linked to show how the finding demonstrates the effect of anchoring on decision-making.

One cultural dimension that influences human behaviour is individualism versus collectivism. Individualistic cultures value personal autonomy, independence, and individual achievement. In contrast, collectivistic cultures emphasize group harmony, interdependence, and shared responsibility over individual desires.

This cultural dimension significantly influences the level of conformity within a society. In collectivistic cultures, conformity is seen as a positive trait that maintains social cohesion and group harmony. In individualistic cultures, however, conformity is often viewed more negatively, as individuals prefer to stand out and assert their independence.

To investigate the influence of this dimension on conformity, Berry (1967) conducted a study using a variation of the Asch paradigm. The researcher compared three different cultures: the Temne of Sierra Leone (an agricultural, collectivistic society), the Inuit of Baffin Island (a hunting-fishing, individualistic society), and a control group of Scots (representing an Western industrialized society).

Participants were brought into a room and shown a set of lines. They were asked to match a target line with one of the comparison lines. In later trials, the researcher gave the participants a hint, claiming that most people from their own culture said a specific (incorrect) line was the correct match. This was done to measure whether the participant would conform to their group's supposed consensus.

Berry found that the Temne (collectivists) had a significantly higher rate of conformity than the Inuit (individualists). The Temne's agricultural economy requires close cooperation and coordination to survive, which fosters collectivistic values and high conformity. Conversely, the Inuit's hunting economy requires self-reliance and individual initiative, fostering individualistic values and very low levels of conformity.

This study demonstrates how the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism, rooted in ecological and economic demands, directly shapes social behaviours like conformity.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB Psychology SAQ rubric (9 marks total):

- **1 to 3 marks**: The response identifies a cultural dimension but defines it poorly. The link to behaviour is unclear, and the study is missing or poorly described.
- **4 to 6 marks**: The response correctly defines the cultural dimension (Individualism vs. Collectivism) and outlines how it relates to conformity. A relevant study (Berry, 1967) is described, but the explanation linking the cultural dimension to the study's results is underdeveloped.
- **7 to 9 marks**: The response provides a highly accurate definition of Individualism vs. Collectivism. It clearly explains how these values influence conformity. The study by Berry (1967) is described with high accuracy (including cultural groups, procedure, and results) and is explicitly integrated to show how ecological/cultural demands shape individual compliance with group norms.

To achieve the highest mark band (19-22 marks), the essay must be well-structured, focused, and display high levels of critical thinking. The response must clearly define the process of neurotransmission, explain how a specific neurotransmitter affects human behaviour, and use relevant research to support the argument. Evaluation should be balanced, covering both the strengths and limitations of the research and the general biological approach to behaviour.

The essay is marked out of 22 according to the IB Psychology ERQ assessment criteria:

Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The response is fully focused on the role of neurotransmitters on human behaviour throughout.
- 1 mark: The response is partially focused or shifts to a different topic.

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Deep and accurate knowledge of neurotransmission and the chosen neurotransmitter (e.g., acetylcholine) is explained clearly.
- 3-4 marks: Good knowledge, but may lack depth in explaining the specific mechanism of the neurotransmitter.
- 1-2 marks: Superficially explained concepts with major inaccuracies.

Criterion C: Use of research (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Relevant research (such as Rogers and Kesner and Antonova et al.) is described accurately, and its relevance to the prompt is fully explained.
- 3-4 marks: Research is described but with minor errors or a weak link to the prompt.
- 1-2 marks: Research is highly inaccurate or largely irrelevant.

Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Excellent critical evaluation, covering both methodological issues (e.g., ecological validity, animal models) and conceptual limitations (e.g., biological reductionism vs. holistic approaches).
- 3-4 marks: Limited critical thinking, mostly descriptive or repetitive.
- 1-2 marks: Little to no critical thinking or evaluation.

Criterion E: Clarity and organization (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The essay is well-structured, coherent, and uses precise psychological terminology.
- 1 mark: The essay has some structure but is difficult to follow in places.

### Model Essay Outline

**1. Introduction**
* **Define Etiology:** Etiology refers to the causes or origins of a psychological disorder.
* **Identify the Disorder:** Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is chosen as the target disorder.
* **Define Sociocultural Factors:** These include external environmental influences such as social hierarchy, life stressors, cultural expectations, gender roles, and social support systems.
* **Thesis Statement:** While biological and cognitive factors play critical roles in MDD, sociocultural factors such as vulnerability models (life stressors coupled with a lack of protective factors) and cultural differences in symptom presentation and reporting are instrumental in understanding the etiology of the disorder.

**2. Sociocultural Theory 1: The Vulnerability Model of Depression**
* **Conceptual Framework:** Brown and Harris (1978) proposed a vulnerability model of depression, suggesting that social factors (specifically life stressors) act as provoking agents, while existing social circumstances serve as vulnerability factors that increase the risk of depression when a crisis occurs.
* **Key Study: Brown and Harris (1978)**
* *Aim:* To investigate how social factors and life events relate to the onset of depression in women.
* *Methodology:* A survey of 458 London women aged 18 to 65. They were interviewed about biographical details, life events, and difficulties they faced.
* *Results:* 82% of those who became depressed had experienced at least one severe life event or major difficulty, compared to only 33% of non-depressed women. They identified four major vulnerability factors: having three or more children under the age of 14, lack of an intimate confiding relationship, unemployment outside the home, and early maternal loss (before age 11).
* *Link to Question:* This study highlights how a person's immediate social environment and systemic lack of support can actively provoke or predispose them to psychiatric disorders like MDD.

**3. Evaluation of the Vulnerability Model and Brown & Harris (1978)**
* **Strengths:** High ecological validity; semi-structured interviews allowed for in-depth, qualitative data; shifted focus from purely biochemical views of depression to situational/environmental realities.
* **Limitations:** The sample was restricted to working-class women in London, limiting generalizability across genders and cultures; the data relies on retrospective self-report (potential memory bias); correlational nature means a bidirectional relationship cannot be fully ruled out.

**4. Sociocultural Theory 2: Cultural Variables and Individualism vs. Collectivism**
* **Conceptual Framework:** Culture shapes how distress is perceived, experienced, and communicated. In individualistic cultures, emotional distress is often psychologized (expressed as affective symptoms like sadness), whereas in collectivist cultures, it is frequently somatized (expressed as physical symptoms like headaches or fatigue).
* **Key Study: Parker et al. (2001)**
* *Aim:* To compare the presentation of MDD symptoms in Chinese (collectivistic) and Australian (individualistic) patients.
* *Methodology:* Depressed outpatients from both countries completed questionnaires about their primary symptoms and what led them to seek help.
* *Results:* 60% of Chinese participants reported somatic symptoms (e.g., headache, insomnia) as their primary reason for seeking help, compared to only 13% of Australian participants. Australians were far more likely to report affective symptoms like depressed mood or cognitive symptoms like worthlessness.
* *Link to Question:* This shows that sociocultural contexts not only influence the clinical reporting of disorders but may alter how the etiology of the disorder is experienced subjectively within different cultural schemas.

**5. Evaluation of Cultural Explanations and Parker et al. (2001)**
* **Strengths:** Demonstrates cross-cultural differences, highlighting that Western diagnostic criteria (like DSM) may suffer from imposing Western psychiatric concepts (imposed etic).
* **Limitations:** Reliance on self-report questionnaires; potential translation issues between English and Chinese; danger of stereotyping entire cultures as homogeneous.

**6. Holistic Synthesis / Critical Discussion**
* **The Diathesis-Stress Model:** Sociocultural factors do not act in isolation. A more complete etiological explanation of MDD combines biological vulnerability (e.g., genetic predisposition such as the short allele of the 5-HTT gene) with sociocultural environmental stressors (e.g., life events/vulnerability factors from Brown and Harris) to trigger onset. This interactionist approach is far more robust than any single-dimension perspective.

**7. Conclusion**
* Sociocultural factors are vital in explaining both the onset (through stress-provocation models) and the phenotypic presentation (through cultural display rules and somatization) of Major Depressive Disorder.
* Therefore, an effective etiology of any psychological disorder must balance biological and cognitive explanations with a thorough evaluation of the individual’s social and cultural context.

### IB Assessment Criteria for 22-mark Extended Response Essay

**Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)**
* **2 marks:** The response is focused on the prompt throughout, explicitly focusing on sociocultural factors influencing the etiology of one specific psychological disorder.
* **1 mark:** The response is occasionally focused on the prompt, or discusses more than one disorder in a superficial manner.

**Criterion B: Knowledge and comprehension (6 marks)**
* **5-6 marks:** The response demonstrates detailed and accurate knowledge and understanding of relevant sociocultural factors (e.g., social stress, vulnerability models, cultural norms) and how they explain the etiology of the chosen disorder.
* **3-4 marks:** The response demonstrates relevant knowledge but with some gaps or inaccuracies; the connection to etiology is present but could be stronger.
* **1-2 marks:** Little relevant knowledge is demonstrated; the description of the disorder or factors is superficial.

**Criterion C: Use of research to support answers (6 marks)**
* **5-6 marks:** Relevant, appropriate, and critical psychological studies (e.g., Brown and Harris, Parker et al.) are used effectively to support the discussion. The studies are described accurately with clear links to the etiology of the disorder.
* **3-4 marks:** Research is cited but has omissions or inaccuracies in description. The link to the question is weak.
* **1-2 marks:** Minimal or descriptive mention of research without appropriate connection to the prompt.

**Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)**
* **5-6 marks:** The response exhibits excellent critical thinking. This includes discussing the strengths and limitations of the theories and studies, exploring biological or cognitive counter-arguments (e.g., diathesis-stress model), and showing a nuanced understanding of cultural/methodological limitations of research.
* **3-4 marks:** There is some attempt at evaluation, but it is superficial, formulaic (e.g., "this study lacks ecological validity"), or not fully integrated.
* **1-2 marks:** Little to no critical thinking or evaluation is present.

**Criterion E: Clarity and organisation (2 marks)**
* **2 marks:** The essay is well-structured, logical, and easy to follow. Psychological terminology is used correctly throughout.
* **1 mark:** The essay is somewhat organized but has lapses in coherence or terminology.