I have received a few questions recently about the synoptic aspect of the A2 papers and thought I would pass on my views!
SYNOPTICITY
The synoptic criteria has been dropped from the mark scheme. It is essentially equivalent to IDA.
ISSUES, DEBATES AND APPROACHES (IDA)
The research team (Damisch et al. (2010) had the idea that having a lucky mascot might actually improve confidence, and therefore performance. So they ran some experiments including one where participants could bring their lucky mascot or charm with them do do a test. Before the test the items* were taken away to be photographed. One group then had their mascots returned, the other group were told the mascots would be returned after the task. The former group did better in the memory task and further tests showed this was linked to an increase in self-confidence. This link would seem to apply also to self-esteem, attribution of success and self-belief.
So maybe if you do have your own lucky mascot it could be a good idea to keep it by you when you are competing or doing exams.
Good luck!
* from old stuffed animals, and stones to wedding rings
It seems our expectation about what we eat directly affects how hungry or satisfied we feel afterwards. In one study, when participants ate soup, not knowing that there was a hidden pump connected to their soup bowl which could surreptitiously alter the amount of soup available once eating started, their reported satiety related to how much soup they perceived they had consumed and not the actual amount.
That experiment was adapted from one using fruit smoothies where participants were shown either a small or a large portion of fruit ‘used’ to make their smoothie. Their perception of satiety was directly linked to their perception of the quantity of fruit seen.
These findings, if reliable and valid, have real implications. When we consume a diet drink or food, or a reduced calorie or reduced sugar/fat food, does this affect how we feel afterwaards? Do we feel hungry again much sooner because of our perception? If this is so, then using different descriptions might have a beneficial effect on those people who are trying to lose weight. One famous firm has for some time been marketing ‘hearty’ soups – this may have been a very smart move!
So many people love eating chocolate, and believe it is a mood-influencing food giving pleasure plus a lift in mood – a happyfood!
Now research suggests that many depressed people really do eat more chocolate. These findings came from both men and women who scored high on a psychometric depression scale but who were not receiving medication. There were no reported increases in other antioxident-rich foods, or other sources of caffeine, fat or sugar, between these depressed adults and non-depressed adults, just the increased chocolate consumption. What is not known is why the chocolate intake increased.
The evolutionary hypothesis explains our liking of chocolate as a combination of pleasures – the sweetness, the creamy texture in the mouth perhaps in some way reminiscent of breast milk – with the high energy-denseness of this food. But there is a complete lack of evidence that breast milk, even in mothers who do eat a lot of chocolate, has any chocolate flavour! So this does not explain why consumption of chocolate rather than any other sweet and creamy food increased in depressed people. Is it the pleasure which is the key factor? Or is it the cultural perception of chocolate as a reward food? Or is there another reason?
In a recent edition of the New Scientist (16 June 2010) the editorial discussed cracks in the peer review system. Staff at the New Scientist analysed a range of scientific journals and found a strong tendency for American researchers to be published faster and in higher profile journals than their rivals elsewhere. Th New Scientist undertook the analysis because a group of researchers had recently taken the unusual step of writing a letter to a leading journal complaining of ‘unreasonable and obstructive peer reviews’. Of course it may simply be that Americans are doing better research, but the New Scientist editorial says we will never know unless peer reviews are published. Some journals are already doing this and the New Scientist hopes this practice increases so that justice can be seen to be done. The editorial concludes by saying that ‘peer review may be flawed but it is the least-worst system we’ve got’.
In page 293 of the A2 book, the Mann-Whitney U test. Half way down it should say N1=10 instead of N1=0. Thanks to Ruth Bailey of Akeley Wood School for pointing this out.
Whilst it’s been known for years that lithium drugs help many bipolar patients to manage their disorder, it hasn’t been known how lithium acts. But now there is a clue! Laboratory studies show a link between lithium and an enzyme known as PO*. This enzyme controls a group of genes which affect brain cells’ sensitivity to lithium. And one of those genes, ImpA2, is also associated with bipolar disorder in some sufferers. So possibly there is a functional connection between ImpA2 and bipolar disorder, which can be mediated by lithium. Understanding this link could lead the way to better treatments for bipolar depression.
*PO=prolyl oligopeptidase
Meat was an important source of nutrition for ancestral humans (as it is today, MacDonalds aside). It has been suggested that the importance of meat meant that men often traded it for other favours such as forging allegiances or for sex (Stanford, 1999 – see pages 101,
130 and 131 of our A2 Complete Companion). Observations of animal and human behaviour have been used to support this ‘meat for sex’ hypothesis, however a recently published study says the suggestion is baseless. Gilby et al. (2010) conducted an observational study of chimpanzees over a 28 year period (see here and here) and found no evidence that males hunted more when females were most fertile, nor were they more likely to share meat with fertile females. However there continues to be evidence that supports the meat for sex hypothesis (see here). This study by Gomes and Boesch (2006) found direct evidence of meat exchange in another study of wild chimpanzees. It may be that males exchange meat on a long-term basis i.e. they don’t do it just when a female is fertile but provide meat continually so they can take advantage of fertile periods when they occur.
We’ve known for ages that far more females than males suffer from depression and anxiety disorders, but it is frequently hypothesised that this is not the true state of things. This is because, in Western industrialised cultures, it is more acceptable to admit vulnerability especially psychological vulnerability if one is female, not male. The macho nature of these cultures is, if you like, a confounding variable. However, there could be more to this than social and cultural relativism.
A recent interesting finding in rats shows that females are definitely more sensitive to stress. Their brain cells respond far more strongly to the precursor to corticosteroid stress hormones, a neurochemical called corticotropin-releasing factor, CRF. Female rat neurons are activated by CRF, male rat neurons adapt to it and less stress hormones are produced.
But does this rat behaviour also happen in humans? Well, we don’t know; but we do know that CRF regulation gets disrupted in human stress-related psychological disorders, so there could be a similarity, although one needs always to be very careful in generalising between species.
A student recently pointed out an error in the AS Book on page 119 – in the Do it yourself feature we have suggested that one way to help yourself to remember the terms related to the body’s response to stress is to use more familiar ideas to represent the different words. For example, you might try to remember those Spanish cousins ‘Adrena Cortez’ (the adrenaline junkie) ‘Adrena Medulla’ (with her cortisol habit). However that is the wrong way round – Adrena Cortez has the cortisol habit. Sorry! Thanks to Jasmine Nelson for pointing this out (and telling us how much she liked this blog).
