2025 IB DP Psychology 模擬試題連答案詳解

One neurotransmitter that affects human behaviour is serotonin, which is associated with the regulation of mood, impulsivity, and social decision-making. Serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter that helps regulate signals in the brain; lower levels are often associated with increased impulsivity or aggression, while higher levels can promote prosocial behaviour. A key study investigating this is Crockett et al. (2010). The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of serotonin on prosocial behaviour and reactions to unfairness. In a double-blind, repeated measures design, participants were split into two groups: one received a dose of citalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI, which increases serotonin activity in the synapse) and the other received a placebo. Participants then played the Ultimatum Game, where a proposer offers a split of money and the responder can accept it or reject it (rejection means neither player gets money). Unfair offers are normally rejected due to an emotional response of anger and resentment. The results showed that participants who received citalopram were significantly less likely to reject unfair offers compared to the placebo group. This suggests that elevated levels of serotonin reduce the emotional reaction to unfairness, promoting prosocial cooperative behaviour and reducing retaliatory actions. Therefore, this study demonstrates that serotonin plays a critical role in modulating moral judgment and social decision-making by promoting prosocial behaviour and mitigating impulsive emotional responses.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB SAQ rubric: [1 to 3 marks] The response shows limited understanding of the topic, is mostly descriptive, or the supporting study is of marginal relevance. [4 to 6 marks] The response describes a neurotransmitter and a study, but the explanation of the biological mechanism or the link between the study and the behaviour is incomplete. [7 to 9 marks] The response clearly explains how the neurotransmitter affects behaviour, supported by a highly relevant study. The explanation is accurate, focused, and demonstrates a deep understanding of the biological mechanism.

The Working Memory Model (WMM), proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), suggests that short-term memory is an active, multi-component store rather than a single unitary system. It consists of the central executive, which controls attention and allocates processing resources; the phonological loop, which processes auditory and verbal information; the visuospatial sketchpad, which handles visual and spatial information; and the episodic buffer, which integrates information from the other subsystems and long-term memory. A study supporting the WMM was conducted by Robbins et al. (1996) to investigate the role of working memory components in chess playing. They used a dual-task paradigm where chess players had to select chess moves while simultaneously performing a secondary task that loaded a specific component of working memory. The secondary tasks included repeating the word 'the' (loading the phonological loop), pressing keys on a calculator in a pattern (loading the visuospatial sketchpad), or generating random letters (loading the central executive). The results showed that selecting chess moves was significantly impaired when the central executive or the visuospatial sketchpad was loaded, but not when the phonological loop was loaded. This demonstrates that different components of working memory are responsible for different types of cognitive processing, supporting the model's claim that working memory is divided into distinct, modality-specific components that can operate independently unless they compete for the same resources.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB SAQ rubric: [1 to 3 marks] The response shows limited knowledge of the model or study, with little to no explanation of how they connect. [4 to 6 marks] The response describes the components of the working memory model and a relevant study, but the explanation of how the study supports the model is underdeveloped. [7 to 9 marks] The response clearly explains the working memory model and uses a relevant study to directly support the explanation, demonstrating a strong understanding of cognitive processing and dual-task paradigms.

Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed by Henri Tajfel, suggests that individuals seek to enhance their self-esteem through their group memberships. SIT involves four key processes: social categorization (dividing the social world into in-groups and out-groups), social identification (adopting the identity of the group), social comparison (comparing the in-group with out-groups), and positive distinctiveness (seeking to show that the in-group is superior to out-groups to boost self-esteem). This often leads to in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination. A key study supporting SIT is Tajfel (1970), which investigated the minimal group paradigm. British schoolboys were randomly assigned to groups based on trivial criteria, such as their preference for paintings by Klee or Kandinsky, though they were told the grouping was based on these preferences. They were then asked to distribute points (convertible to money) to other boys using matrix tables. The boys consistently selected point-allocation strategies that maximised the difference in points between their in-group and the out-group, even if this meant giving their own group fewer total points overall. This demonstrated that the mere categorization of individuals into arbitrary groups is sufficient to trigger in-group favouritism and discrimination against the out-group, strongly supporting SIT's core concept of positive distinctiveness and social identity enhancement.

Marks are awarded based on the standard IB SAQ rubric: [1 to 3 marks] The response shows limited or superficial understanding of Social Identity Theory or the supporting study. [4 to 6 marks] The response describes SIT and a relevant study, but the connection between the theory's concepts and the study's findings is not fully explained. [7 to 9 marks] The response provides a thorough explanation of SIT's core components and clearly demonstrates how Tajfel's findings support the theory's predictions about social categorization and positive distinctiveness.

In response to this question, students should clearly identify one cognitive process, such as memory, and discuss how emotion influences it, typically focusing on Flashbulb Memory (FBM).

Introduction: Define the cognitive process of memory and introduce the concept of emotion. State that while memory is generally reconstructive and prone to distortion, highly emotional events can lead to memories that are vivid, detailed, and held with high confidence, although not necessarily highly accurate. Introduce the theory of Flashbulb Memory proposed by Brown and Kulik (1977).

Theory Explanations: Explain Brown and Kulik's theory of Flashbulb Memory, which posits a unique neural mechanism ('printnow') triggered by unexpected and personally consequential events, leading to permanent, vivid, and photographic-like memories.

Supporting Research: Discuss Brown and Kulik's (1977) classic study where participants were asked about their memories of shocking events (like the assassination of JFK). They found high levels of detail and vividness, particularly when the event had personal significance (e.g., civil rights leaders for Black participants).

Counter-evidence and Critical Evaluation: Challenge the photographic accuracy of FBMs. Discuss Neisser and Harsch (1992), who investigated memories of the Challenger space shuttle disaster. They found that while participants maintained high confidence in their memories over three years, their actual accuracy fell significantly, suggesting that emotional memories are also subject to reconstructive processes and post-event discussion.

Biological Integration: Discuss Sharot et al. (2007), who used fMRI to study witnesses of the 9/11 attacks. They found that those closer to the attacks had selective activation of the amygdala when recalling the event, suggesting a biological basis for the emotional modulation of memory encoding.

Conclusion: Conclude by summarizing that while emotion dramatically enhances the subjective vividness and confidence of a memory, it does not guarantee objective accuracy. Reconstructive processes, rehearsal, and social sharing play large roles in maintaining these memories over time.

Criterion A: Focus on the question (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The response is fully focused on the question, identifying one specific cognitive process (e.g., memory) and discussing the influence of emotion with high relevance throughout.
- 1 mark: The focus is maintained but may occasionally wander, or the cognitive process/emotion is not clearly defined.

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Excellent knowledge and understanding of the influence of emotion on cognitive processes (such as FBM theory). Relevant concepts are defined and explained accurately.
- 3-4 marks: Good knowledge, but may lack depth in explaining the theoretical mechanisms of how emotion influences cognition.
- 1-2 marks: Limited or superficial knowledge.

Criterion C: Use of research to support answer (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Relevant research (e.g., Brown and Kulik, Neisser and Harsch, Sharot et al.) is chosen and described accurately, demonstrating a clear link to the essay's argument.
- 3-4 marks: Studies are described but their relevance to the influence of emotion is not fully developed.
- 1-2 marks: Superficial mention of studies with little description.

Criterion D: Critical thinking (6 marks)
- 5-6 marks: Excellent evaluation of theories and studies. Discusses limitations of research (methodological/ethical issues, self-reports) and balanced arguments regarding accuracy vs vividness.
- 3-4 marks: Some critical thinking is present but lacks consistency or depth.
- 1-2 marks: Limited evaluation.

Criterion E: Clarity and organisation (2 marks)
- 2 marks: The essay is well-structured, logical, and easy to follow.
- 1 mark: The structure is somewhat disorganized but understandable.

### High-Level Essay Outline

**Introduction**
* Define the chosen psychological disorder (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder - MDD) using DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria.
* Introduce the cognitive approach to abnormal psychology, which proposes that maladaptive or biased thinking patterns (schemas, attributions, or cognitive processing) cause or maintain psychological disorders.
* State the specific cognitive explanations to be discussed: Beck’s Cognitive Triad (Cognitive Theory of Depression) and/or Nolen-Hoeksema's Response Styles Theory (Rumination).
* Outline the essay: The discussion will examine the mechanisms of these cognitive models, present empirical evidence supporting them, and evaluate their strengths, limitations, and interactions with other etiological factors.

**Body Paragraph 1: Theory - Beck's Cognitive Theory of Depression**
* Explain **Beck's Cognitive Triad**:
* **Negative Views of Self** (e.g., "I am worthless").
* **Negative Views of the World/Experience** (e.g., "Everything is against me").
* **Negative Views of the Future** (e.g., "It will never get better").
* Discuss the role of **negative schemas** (underlying core beliefs formed in early childhood through negative experiences) which remain latent until activated by stressful life events.
* Explain **cognitive distortions** (systematic errors in thinking) that maintain the negative schemas: e.g., arbitrary inference, selective abstraction, overgeneralization, personalization.

**Body Paragraph 2: Supporting Research - Alloy et al. (1999)**
* **Aim**: To investigate whether cognitive styles can predict the onset of depression.
* **Method**: A prospective longitudinal study tracking young adults (college students) for six years. Participants were assessed for cognitive style and categorized as "positive cognitive style" or "negative cognitive style" using questionnaires.
* **Results**: After 6 years, 17% of the "negative cognitive group" developed major depressive disorder compared to only 1% of the "positive cognitive group". Among those with a past history of depression, the negative cognitive style group had higher rates of relapse.
* **Link**: Demonstrates a prospective link between negative cognitive styles and the subsequent development of MDD, supporting the etiological claim that thinking style precedes the clinical onset of depression.

**Body Paragraph 3: Theory & Research - Nolen-Hoeksema's Response Styles Theory (Rumination)**
* Explain **Rumination**: Repetitively and passively focusing on the symptoms of one's distress, its possible causes, and its consequences, rather than active problem-solving.
* Detail how rumination prolongs and intensifies depressive episodes by making negative thinking patterns more accessible.
* **Supporting Research: Nolen-Hoeksema (1991)** or **Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow (1991)**: Found that individuals who ruminated when distressed experienced longer and more severe depressive symptoms compared to those who used distraction strategies.

**Body Paragraph 4: Critical Evaluation & Discussion**
* **Strengths of Cognitive Explanations**:
* Strong empirical support (both prospective longitudinal studies and clinical trials).
* Highly practical application: Led directly to the development of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which is highly effective in treating MDD and has lower relapse rates than medication alone, suggesting that modifying cognitions addresses root causes.
* Empowering for patients, as it implies they can learn to control or modify their patterns of thinking.
* **Limitations of Cognitive Explanations**:
* **Bidirectionality / Cause-and-Effect**: It is difficult to definitively determine whether negative cognitions cause depression or are simply a symptom of depression (the "chicken-or-egg" dilemma). Though longitudinal studies like Alloy et al. mitigate this, biochemical changes can also alter cognition.
* **Treatment-Etiology Fallacy**: Just because changing thoughts treats depression does not prove that faulty thoughts caused it initially.
* **Reductionism**: Cognitive models can overemphasize individual thoughts and neglect real-world external stressors (e.g., poverty, discrimination, trauma) or underlying biological vulnerabilities (e.g., low serotonin levels, genetic predispositions).
* **Synthesis/Integration (The Diathesis-Stress Model)**:
* Cognitive vulnerabilities (such as negative schemas) act as a cognitive *diathesis* that requires an environmental *stressor* (such as a negative life event) to trigger the clinical onset of the disorder.

### Mark Allocation (Total: 22 Marks)

#### Criterion A: Focus on the question (Max 2 marks)
* **2 marks**: The response is fully focused on the question, clearly identifying a specific psychological disorder (e.g., depression) and addressing cognitive explanations throughout.
* **1 mark**: The response is partially focused on the question or identifies a disorder but drifts into non-cognitive explanations without direct relevance.

#### Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (Max 6 marks)
* **5–6 marks**: The response demonstrates detailed, accurate, and comprehensive knowledge of cognitive explanations (e.g., Beck's cognitive triad, cognitive distortions, schemas, rumination). Key terms are defined and used accurately.
* **3–4 marks**: The response shows reasonable knowledge of cognitive explanations, but some details may be missing or described too generally.
* **1–2 marks**: The response shows limited or superficial knowledge of the cognitive explanation.

#### Criterion C: Use of research to address the question (Max 6 marks)
* **5–6 marks**: Relevant research (e.g., Alloy et al., Nolen-Hoeksema) is described accurately, and its connection to the cognitive explanation is clearly explained. The study details support the arguments made.
* **3–4 marks**: Research is included but may be described with minor inaccuracies or its connection to the theoretical explanation is not fully developed.
* **1–2 marks**: Minimal or highly inaccurate research is presented.

#### Criterion D: Critical thinking (Max 6 marks)
* **5–6 marks**: The response exhibits strong evaluation. Discussion points are well-reasoned, showing a sophisticated understanding of strengths, limitations, bidirectionality, treatment-etiology fallacy, and the interaction of cognitive factors with biological/sociocultural factors (diathesis-stress).
* **3–4 marks**: The response includes some evaluation (e.g., mentions CBT or bidirectionality), but it is descriptive rather than critically analytical.
* **1–2 marks**: Superficial or absent critical thinking.

#### Criterion E: Clarity and organisation (Max 2 marks)
* **2 marks**: The essay is well-structured, follows a logical flow, and uses appropriate psychological terminology throughout.
* **1 mark**: Some structure is present, but it lacks cohesive flow or has significant structural issues.