1. Rosenhan (Sane in Insane Places)
1.1. Context
1.2. Aim
1.2.1. Explain why the study was done. [2]
1.2.2. Describe the aim. [2]
1.3. Sample
1.3.1. Who were the participants in study 1 and study 2 from Rosenhan (sane in insane places)? [4]
1.3.2. Explain what Rosenhan did to ensure the results would generalise to other hospitals. [2]
1.4. Procedure
1.4.1. Briefly describe the pseudopatients. [2]
1.4.1.1. How did the pseudopatients gain access to the mental institutions? [2]
1.4.2. Describe what the pseudopatients did after they had been admitted. [2]
1.4.3. In the study by Rosenhan (sane in insane places), the pseudo-patients lied when they claimed to be hearing voices. What other lies did they tell during their appointment at the hospital? [2]
1.4.3.1. Suggest why it was important that the pseudo-patients told the lies you have described. [2]
1.4.3.2. Give two things the pseudo-patients said in their appointment that were true. [2]
1.4.4. Describe two ways in which the pseudo-patients differed from each other. [2]
1.4.4.1. Explain why it was important to have a varied group of pseudo-patients in this study. [2]
1.4.5. In the study by Rosenhan (sane in insane places), each pseudo-patient had to get themselves discharged from the mental institution. Describe how the pseudo-patients were instructed to achieve this by Rosenhan. [2]
1.4.5.1. Identify two behaviours of the pseudo-patients that contributed to their discharge. [2]
1.5. Controls
1.6. Results
1.6.1. How often did physicians appear on the wards? [2]
1.6.1.1. How did the physicians typically respond to questions from the pseudopatients? [2]
1.6.2. Give one example of how staff interpreted the behaviour of the pseudopatients. [2]
1.6.3. How did the real patients interpret the behaviour of the pseudopatients? [2]
1.6.4. In the study by Rosenhan (sane in insane places) the pseudo-patients asked the nurses for information. How did the nurses respond to these questions? [2]
1.6.4.1. Suggest one reason why the nurses responded to these questions in the way that they did. [2]
1.6.5. Describe one normal behaviour of the pseudo-patients which was interpreted as abnormal by the hospital staff. [2]
1.6.6. In the study by Rosenhan (sane in insane places) the pseudo-patients interacted with the staff and with the real patients. How did these interactions differ? [2]
1.6.6.1. Why did these interactions differ? [2]
1.7. Conclusion
1.7.1. Rosenhan (sane in insane places) identifies several reasons why it may be difficult to tell the normal from the abnormal. Identify two of these reasons. [2]
1.7.2. In the study by Rosenhan (sane in insane places) most of the pseudo-patients were admitted to hospital with an incorrect diagnosis of 'schizophrenia'. Give two possible explanations for why the hospitals made these mistakes. [4]
1.8. Evaluation
1.8.1. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of individual differences using Rosenhan (sane in insane places) [10]
1.8.2. Discuss Rosenhan (sane in insane places) in terms of whether it supports an individual or situational explanation. [10]
1.8.3. Evaluate the use of longitudinal studies using Rosenhan (sane in insane places). [10]
1.8.4. Use Rosenhan's study (sane in insane places) to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of collecting qualitative data. [10]
1.8.5. Suggest how ecologically valid the study was. [2]
2. Billington (Cognitive Styles)
2.1. Context
2.1.1. What is meant by ‘empathising’? [2]
2.1.2. The study by Billington et al is based on Empathising-Systemising theory. What does this theory predict about empathising and systemising in females? [2]
2.1.3. Describe what was meant by the ‘affective component of empathising’. [2]
2.2. Aim
2.3. Sample
2.4. Procedure
2.4.1. What is meant by a ‘forced choice task’? [2]
2.4.2. The Eyes Task collected quantitative data. Why might psychologists choose to collect quantitative data? [2]
2.4.3. The study categorised student participants into those studying physical science and those studying humanities subjects. Name four subjects which were categorised as physical science. [4]
2.4.4. Describe the original systemising questionnaire (SQ). [2]
2.4.4.1. Explain how the revised systemising questionnaire (SQ-R) improved upon the original systemising questionnaire (SQ). [2]
2.4.4.2. In the study by Billington et al. (empathising and systemising), the participants completed a questionnaire called the SQ-R, a revised version of the original systemising questionnaire. Describe the SQ-R. [4]
2.4.5. Billington et al (empathising and systemising) is an experiment. With reference to this study, describe two characteristics of experiments. [4]
2.4.6. What is meant by the term ‘self report’? [2]
2.4.7. In the study by Billington et al. (empathising and systemising), the participants carried out the study online. Describe what the participants were required to do online. [2]
2.4.8. The participants could do the tasks in any order. What disadvantage might this have? [2]
2.4.9. Billington et al. (empathising and systemising) used the forced-choice Embedded Figures Test (FC-EFT). Describe the FC-EFT. [2]
2.4.10. In the study by Billington et al. (empathising and systemising) many independent variables were studied. Describe two of the independent variables. [4]
2.5. Controls
2.6. Results
2.6.1. Give one piece of evidence that suggests females are better empathisers than males. [2]
2.6.2. What were the results of the SQ-R for males and females? [2]
2.6.3. Billington et al. (empathising and systemising) propose that on average, females have a stronger drive to empathise and males have a stronger drive to systemise. Give one piece of evidence that supports the average pattern. [2]
2.6.3.1. Billington et al. say that although this is statistically so, it is also important to state that these are only averages. Why is it important to say this? [2]
2.6.4. What did the results of the FC-EFT show? [2]
2.6.5. Describe the participants who were ‘extreme empathisers’. [2]
2.7. Conclusion
2.8. Evaluation
2.8.1. Evaluate Billington et al (empathising and systemising) in terms of two strengths. [3]
2.8.2. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of individual differences using Billington et al (empathising and systemising) [10]
2.8.3. Use Billington et al (empathising and systemising) to discuss the benefits of gathering quantitative data. [10]
2.8.4. Describe one problem with the conclusion from the study by Billington et al. [2]
2.8.5. Evaluate Billington et al.'s study (empathising and systemising) in terms of its usefulness/applications. [10]
2.8.6. Evaluate Billington et al's study (empathising and systemising) in terms of its contribution to the nature-nurture debate. [10]
2.8.7. Use Billington et al.'s study (empathising and systemising) to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the use of psychometrics in psychology. [10]
2.8.8. Use Billington et al.'s study (empathising and systemising) to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the individual differences approach to psychology. [10]
3. Thigpen & Cleckley (MPD)
3.1. Context
3.1.1. What is ‘multiple personality disorder’? [2]
3.1.2. What is the difference between having multiple personality disorder and having different sides to your personality? [2]
3.2. Aim
3.3. Sample
3.4. Procedure
3.4.1. Identify two tests that were used. [2]
3.4.1.1. Describe the results of one of these tests. [2]
3.4.2. The study by Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder) used the Rorschach (ink blot) projective test. Describe the results of this test for Eve White and Eve Black. [2]
3.4.2.1. Explain one weakness of this projective test. [2]
3.4.3. What is a ‘case study’? [2]
3.4.3.1. Explain one advantage of using the case study method in this investigation. [2]
3.4.4. Why is it useful for psychologists to obtain qualitative data? [2]
3.4.4.1. Why did Thigpen and Cleckley also need to collect quantitative data? [2]
3.4.5. Thigpen and Cleckley used hypnosis to study multiple personality disorder. Describe the incident which caused hypnosis to be used. [2]
3.4.5.1. Describe why hypnosis was used in this study. [2]
3.5. Controls
3.6. Results
3.6.1. Thigpen and Cleckley studied the case of Eve, who they concluded was suffering from multiple personality disorder. Describe two pieces of evidence that led them to this conclusion. [4]
3.6.2. In their study of multiple personality disorder, Thigpen and Cleckley collected empirical evidence from psychological tests. They also gathered anecdotal evidence including events that happened to Eve. Briefly describe one piece of anecdotal evidence from the study. [2]
3.6.2.1. Suggest one problem with anecdotal evidence. [2]
3.6.3. From the study by Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder), describe two ways in which the parts of the letter written by Eve White and Eve Black were different. [4]
3.6.4. With regard to seeking social company, how did Eve Black’s behaviour differ from Eve White’s behaviour? [2]
3.6.5. In the study by Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder) mainly qualitative data were collected. Describe the qualitative data relating to the facial expression of Eve White and the facial expression of Eve Black. [2]
3.6.6. Describe the qualitative data relating to the voice of Eve White and the voice of Eve Black. [2]
3.6.7. Describe the relationship that Eve White had with her parents and Eve Black had with her parents. [2]
3.6.7.1. Describe how the information about these relationships was obtained. [2]
3.7. Conclusion
3.7.1. In the study by Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder), before the researchers were aware of Eve Black, Eve White reported hearing a voice in her head. What suggested that this was not a symptom of a schizoid or psychotic disorder? [2]
3.8. Evaluation
3.8.1. Evaluate Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder) in terms of one strength and one weakness. [3]
3.8.2. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of individual differences using Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder) [10]
3.8.3. Evaluate Thigpen and Cleckley's (multiple personality disorder) study in terms of its ecological validity. [10]
3.8.4. Evaluate Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder) in terms of two strengths. [10]
3.8.5. Evaluate the use of longitudinal studies using Thigpen and Cleckley (multiple personality disorder). [10]
3.8.6. Use Thigpen & Cleckley's study (multiple personality disorder) = to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the use of psychometrics in psychology. [10]
4. Veale & Riley (BDD)
4.1. Context
4.1.1. Why, according to the cognitive behavioural model of body dysmorphic disorder, is mirror gazing damaging? [2]
4.2. Aim
4.2.1. Describe the aim of the study. [2]
4.3. Sample
4.3.1. Identify two ways in which the sample of patients and controls were matched. [2]
4.3.1.1. Explain why one of these variables might have been important to the study. [2]
4.4. Procedure
4.4.1. Identify and outline one self report tool used with the body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients. [2]
4.4.2. Describe how the data about ‘motivation before looking in a mirror’ were gathered. [2]
4.4.3. Identify the two groups of participants being compared. [2]
4.4.4. The experiment was based on the findings of a pilot study. What is the purpose of a pilot study? [2]
4.4.5. Name the experimental design used and explain how this was used in this study. [2]
4.4.5.1. Suggest one disadvantage of this experimental design. [2]
4.4.6. Describe what was meant by a short mirror session. [2]
4.5. Controls
4.6. Results
4.6.1. The study by Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) used the self report method. Outline two pieces of qualitative data about behaviours from the body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients. [2]
4.6.1.1. Suggest one advantage of collecting qualitative data in this study. [2]
4.6.2. Give two uses of the mirror by body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients. [2]
4.6.3. Give two uses of the mirror that were more common in the control participants than the BDD patients. [2]
4.6.4. Give two differences in activities during long sessions spent in front of the mirror between the two groups. [2]
4.6.5. Give two objects or surfaces, other than mirrors, used by body dysmorphic disorder patients for mirror gazing. [2]
4.6.6. Describe one piece of quantitative data from this study. [2]
4.6.7. From the study by Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) describe two ways in which the body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients avoided mirrors. [4]
4.6.8. How did the length and frequency of short mirror sessions differ between the control and the body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients? [2]
4.6.9. Patients had a different focus of attention during long mirror gazing sessions than the controls. Describe two of these differences in focus of attention. [4]
4.7. Conclusion
4.7.1. Describe two conclusions from the study by Veale and Riley on mirror gazing. [4]
4.7.2. Veale and Riley studied mirror gazing in body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) patients. Describe two goals of mirror use that the BDD patients were encouraged to develop. [4]
4.7.3. To what extent was mirror gazing like the compulsive checking of a patient with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)? [2]
4.8. Evaluation
4.8.1. Evaluate Veale and Riley (mirror-gazing) in terms of two strengths. [3]
4.8.2. Evaluate Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) in terms of its weaknesses. [10]
4.8.3. Evaluate Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) in terms of its usefulness or applications. [10]
4.8.4. State one advantage and one disadvantage of collecting self report data. [2]
4.8.5. Discuss the use of qualitative data in psychology using Veale and Riley (mirror gazing) as an example. [10]
4.8.6. Use Veale and Riley's study (mirror gazing) to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of collecting qualitative data. [10]
4.8.7. Use Veale and Riley's study (mirror gazing) to discuss ethics in psychology. [10]