Which study can I use? Options ERQ edition.

Evaluate one cognitive aetiology of one disorder.

Alloy et al (1999) - influence of cognitive style on depression, 2.5 year longitudinal study Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) - prospective study of the rumination of depression-related symptoms

Discuss the prevalence rates of one or more disorders.

Brown and Harris (1974) - determine what factors play roles in higher prevalence, and evaluating errors in diagnosis Chou and Edge - bidirectional ambiguity (mental health and social media), new theories about origins of disorder

Evaluate one socio-cultural aetiology of one disorder.

Brown and Harris (1974) - onset of depression in women with differing social classes Parker, Chea and Roy (2001) - comparing descriptions of depressive symptoms in 2 cultures

Evaluate the use of one or more research method used to study the aetiology of abnormal psychology.

Correlational → Bio aetiology studies often look at genetic + psychological relationships → To study this, psychologists use correlational studies (strength of relationship between continuous variables) → If one variable changes, so does another - correlational coefficient is 1.0 if it is strong, -1.0 if weak, and 0.0 if non-existent → Aetiology studies use correlational by gathering data on variables that might be related - w/ depression! → Eg. genetic similarity and amount of rumination/sociocultural risk can be correlated → Naturally occurring variables aren't ethical to isolate + study in a lab → The use of correlational can be seen in Kendler conducted on 15,493 twins from Swedish twin registry → Asked questions about individual VS shared environment, aimed to look at concordance rates with genetic similarity → Turns out it was linked, stronger positive correlation for monozygotic twins as opposed to dizygotic → Would've been impossible to isolate variables, but this allows him to construct hypotheses ab why variables are related Experiment (quasi) ◉ No random allocation to treatment or control ◉ Alloy carried out study of role of one cognitive style on depression ◉ Used sample of non-depressed freshmen, half used to have depression, and were given test to measure cognitive style ◉ HR or LR classification, every 6 weeks for 2.5 years, based on questionnaires ◉ No prior history, 17% HR developed, 1% in LR - history, 29% HR developed, 6% in LR ◉ (-) Quasi-experimental so can't establish cause-effect relationships, demand characteristics, low mundane realism, low ecological validity ◉ (+) Better control of variables, easier to comment on cause-effect, easy to replicate

Evaluate the use of one research method used to study the aetiology of abnormal psychology.

Correlational → Bio aetiology studies often look at genetic + psychological relationships → To study this, psychologists use correlational studies (strength of relationship between continuous variables) → If one variable changes, so does another - correlational coefficient is 1.0 if it is strong, -1.0 if weak, and 0.0 if non-existent → Aetiology studies use correlational by gathering data on variables that might be related - w/ depression! → Eg. genetic similarity and amount of rumination/sociocultural risk can be correlated → Naturally occurring variables aren't ethical to isolate + study in a lab → The use of correlational can be seen in Kendler conducted on 15,493 twins from Swedish twin registry → Asked questions about individual VS shared environment, aimed to look at concordance rates with genetic similarity → Turns out it was linked, stronger positive correlation for monozygotic twins as opposed to dizygotic → Would've been impossible to isolate variables, but this allows him to construct hypotheses ab why variables are related → 2nd study to support cognitive aetiology was by Nolen-Hoeksema, to assess rumination and depressive symptoms → Found that men/women who ruminate more following loss of loved one are more likley to suffer longer from severe depression → Correlational method is valuable, strength of variable is calculated → (-) correlation doesn't = causation, don't show the cause of depression, eg third variable → Doesn't isolate IV and can't control extraneous variables, manipulation wouldn't be ethical though → Conclusion: correlational studies are valuable when studying possible relationships between variables

Evaluate one biological etiology of one disorder.

Kendler et al (2006) - Swedish twin genetics, studying concordance rates Caspi et al (2003) - gene-interaction with stressful life events

Discuss one or more ethical considerations relevant to one study on the treatment of disorders.

Protection from undue stress or harm ◉ In psychology, ethics must be considered to ensure participants aren't harmed and research conducted is ethically valid ◉ Undue stress is when participant experiences more stress than expected through normal day-to-day ◉ Caspi (depression) - found that 2 short alleles for 5HTT gene makes more vulnerable to depression - informing participants may cause undue stress + self-fulfilling prophecy, yet knowing it can help taking precautions ◉ Wilhelm found that when studying gene, participants felt more positive than negative ab information (result of social desirability?) ◉ If research is shared with doctor, they may make different diagnosis ◉ Researchers must always always address considerations - makes people less likely to join if not - may lead to misdiagnosis if otherwise