Tom Coster – Psychology

Tag: research

  • Mindfulness: An AO3 case study in critical thinking

    Mindfulness has become one of the most popular psychological interventions, promoted as a way to reduce stress, improve attention, increase resilience, regulate emotions, and even boost academic performance. Many schools incorporate mindfulness into pastoral programmes, tutor time, CAS activities, or classroom routines, often assuming that it is an established way to improve student wellbeing.

    As psychology teachers, however, we should pause before making such claims, not because mindfulness is ineffective. Rather, it is because the scientific evidence is less conclusive than many popular accounts suggest. Mindfulness offers an excellent case study in why psychologists must think critically about research evidence. The debate surrounding mindfulness touches on many of the very concepts we teach in the IB Diploma Psychology course: construct validity, operational definitions, control groups, placebo effects, publication bias, and replication.

    Ironically, mindfulness may be one of the best examples of why psychology requires scepticism, even when an intervention becomes enormously popular.

    The first problem: What exactly is mindfulness?

    Before researchers can determine whether an intervention works, they must first agree on what the intervention is and this is perhaps the biggest challenge facing mindfulness research.

    The word mindfulness has been used to describe Buddhist meditation practices, brief breathing exercises, guided body scans, attention-training techniques, acceptance-based therapies, and simply paying close attention to the present moment. Different researchers use different definitions, different interventions, and different outcome measures.

    Van Dam et al. (2018) argues that there is no universally accepted definition of mindfulness and that researchers frequently operationalise it differently. Consequently, studies labelled as investigating mindfulness are often examining different interventions. This makes comparisons between studies and conclusions drawn from systematic reviews problematic.

    Imagine if researchers studying ‘exercise’ grouped together walking, weightlifting, yoga, marathon running, and physiotherapy as one variable. We would correctly question conclusions about whether ‘exercise’ has an effect on a particular behaviour. The same research problem exists in mindfulness research.

    From an IB Psychology perspective, this is a clear issue of construct validity. If researchers cannot clearly define the construct they are investigating, it becomes difficult to know exactly what their studies are measuring and therefore there is doubt about conclusions.

    The evidence is more modest than many people believe

    Mindfulness is often presented as a universal treatment for stress, anxiety, attention, emotional wellbeing, and academic success, but the research evidence indicates a more modest conclusion.

    One of the largest and most influential reviews was conducted by Goyal et al. (2014), who considered 47 randomised controlled trials involving more than 3,500 participants. The study found only moderate evidence that mindfulness programmes reduced symptoms of anxiety, depression, and chronic pain when compared with control groups.

    The study found little or no evidence that mindfulness substantially improved stress, positive mood, attention, substance use, sleep, or weight-related outcomes. Nor was there convincing evidence that mindfulness consistently outperformed established active treatments.

    In other words, mindfulness appears to have benefits in some contexts, within clinical populations, but many of the broader claims commonly made in schools are not supported by empirical evidence.

    Creswell (2017) concluded that mindfulness-based interventions show genuine promise for some psychological and physical health outcomes, but the study noted significant methodological limitations across the literature, including small sample sizes, inconsistent intervention protocols, weak control conditions, and uncertainty about the mechanisms responsible for any apparent benefits.

    Are students benefiting from mindfulness, or are they simply enjoying a quiet break from the noise of modern schooling?

    The most important methodological question is surprisingly simple: if students feel calmer after ten minutes of mindfulness, what caused the improvement?

    Many mindfulness activities involve sitting quietly, breathing slowly, reducing distractions, and temporarily stepping away from the demands of school. Any of these factors could improve mood or reduce stress.

    This creates a fundamental challenge for researchers: identifying the active variable.

    Without carefully designed control groups, it is impossible to determine whether improvements are caused by mindfulness activities, by relaxation, by expectancy effects, or simply by giving participants permission to ‘press pause’ for a few minutes.

    Van Dam et al. (2018) identified this as one of the major limitations of studying mindfulness. Many studies have failed to separate the separate mindfulness from rest, relaxation, or positive expectations.

    For schools, this distinction is important.

    If ten minutes of uninterrupted quiet time produces similar outcomes to ten minutes of mindfulness activities or instruction, maybe what students need is simply more opportunities to ‘press pause’ during busy school days. And perhaps that suggests that the busy-ness of the modern school is a core cause of mental health issues among school students.

    Mindfulness is an AO3 goldmine

    Whether schools choose to include mindfulness in their curriculum is ultimately a management decision, but as psychology teachers, mindfulness provides something even more valuable: an outstanding opportunity to teach critical thinking.

    Almost every major AO3 evaluation skill appears within the mindfulness literature.

    Construct validity: What exactly is meant by ‘mindfulness’?

    Operationalisation: Are different studies investigating the same intervention?

    Control groups: Does mindfulness outperform active comparison conditions such as quiet rest or relaxation?

    Expectancy effects: Do participants improve because they expect mindfulness to work? Is there a placebo effect in play?

    Publication bias: Are positive research findings more likely to be published than null findings?

    Generalisability: Can findings from adult participants be applied to adolescents in schools?

    Rather than presenting mindfulness as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, teachers can use it to demonstrate how psychologists evaluate evidence, identify methodological limitations, and avoid drawing conclusions that reach far beyond the results.

    A word of caution for schools

    None of this means schools should ban mindfulness activities.

    Many students enjoy them and some find them relaxing or helpful. The available evidence suggests that mindfulness-based programmes may reduce anxiety and depression in some contexts, particularly when delivered as structured clinical interventions.

    However, schools should be careful not to overstate what the science has determined. Claims that mindfulness improves concentration, resilience, emotional intelligence, wellbeing, academic achievement, or mental health across all students go far beyond the available evidence.

    Davidson and Kaszniak (2015) argues that future progress depends on clearer definitions, stronger research designs, better control groups, and more rigorous methods. Van Dam et al. (2018) cautions that enthusiasm for mindfulness has often outpaced the quality of the evidence supporting it.

    As psychology teachers, we should hold mindfulness to the same evidential standards that we apply to every other psychological claim. After all, our goal is not to persuade students that mindfulness works or that it does not; our goal is to teach them how psychologists evaluate research and theories.

    Mindfulness therefore provides an excellent lesson, not because it offers simple answers, but because it raises the kinds of questions that good psychologists should be asking.

    Possible extended essay questions

    For students interested in research methods, wellbeing, or contemporary psychology, mindfulness provides fertile ground for a Psychology Extended Essay. For example:

    • To what extent does the lack of a universally accepted definition of mindfulness limit the validity of research into mindfulness-based interventions?
    • To what extent do methodological limitations explain inconsistent findings in mindfulness research?
    • How convincing is the evidence that mindfulness interventions improve psychological wellbeing beyond the effects of quiet rest or relaxation?
    • To what extent has the popularity of mindfulness outpaced the scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness?

    Each of these questions encourages students to evaluate methodology rather than simply asking whether mindfulness ‘works’; an approach that reflects the critical thinking at the heart of psychological science.

    References

    Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mindfulness Interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 491–516.

    Davidson, R. J., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2015). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and meditation. American Psychologist, 70(7), 581–592.

    Goyal, M., et al. (2014). Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 357–368.

    Van Dam, N. T., et al. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61.

  • Psychology vocabulary

    An often-neglected aspect of teaching IBDP Psychology helping students develop fluency with subject-specific terminology. Words like validity, reliability, etiology, synaptic gap, neurotransmitter, and operant conditioning aren’t just vocabulary, they’re the precise tools we use to communicate complex ideas about behavior.

    The assessment criteria make this explicit: ‘There is accurate and precise use of psychological terminology’ and ‘Psychological terminology relevant to the research methods is used effectively’. These aren’t minor criteria, they directly affect student grades in all assessment components. When students write about ‘proof’ instead of evidence, or ‘sadness’ instead of depression, they’re not just being imprecise; they’re failing to demonstrate the precise and accurate vocabulary that examiners expect.

    Teaching terminology effectively means more than providing definitions. Students must understand when and how to use these terms. Does this theory apply to all cultures or is it ‘culture-bound’? Is this a hormone or a neurotransmitter? Understanding these distinctions demonstrates genuine psychological literacy, not just memorization.

    The payoff extends beyond exam scores. Students who master the subject’s vocabulary think more precisely about behavior, communicate more effectively in their internal assessment and extended essays, and develop the academic foundation necessary for university level psychology study.

    IB Diploma Psychology – The Glossary of Psychology Vocabulary (by Tom Coster) is an essential companion for every IB Diploma Psychology student, providing a clear and concise collection of key terms and concepts tailored to the IB Psychology syllabus.

    Designed to support your journey into the field, this glossary will enhance your understanding of human thought, emotion, and behavior, while helping you master the specialized vocabulary required for academic success and real-world application.

  • Causality and the experimental method

    At the heart of psychology lies a beautifully simple question: What causes what? The experimental method gives us the clearest path to answering this question, and its elegance lies in its straightforward logic.

    Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. When we say “X causes Y,” we mean that changes in X directly produce changes in Y. In psychology, establishing causality allows us to move beyond mere correlation and understand the mechanisms behind behavior.

    The key requirement for causality is that we must demonstrate that one variable directly produces a change in another variable.

    The experimental method is powerful precisely because of its simple logic. The basic formula involves three steps. First, change one thing, which is the Independent Variable or IV. Second, keep everything else the same by controlling all other variables. Third, measure what happens by observing changes in the Dependent Variable or DV.

    The beautiful conclusion follows naturally. If the DV changes, and we’ve controlled everything else, then the change in the IV must have caused the change in the DV. That’s it. That’s the entire logic.

    Teaching Tip 1: Start with the Logic: Before diving into terminology, help students grasp the fundamental reasoning. If I want to know whether caffeine improves memory, I need to change only the caffeine and see what happens to memory. If I change multiple things at once, I can’t know which one caused the effect.

    Teaching Tip 2: Emphasize Control: The power of the experimental method isn’t in what we change, it’s in what we don’t change. Every variable we control strengthens our claim of causality.

    Teaching Tip 3: Connect to Real Research: When teaching studies like Loftus and Palmer on leading questions and memory, or Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment on observational learning and aggression, highlight the beautiful simplicity. Identify the IV, which is the variable the researcher manipulated. Identify the DV, which is what they measured. Note the controls, which is everything they kept the same. Then draw the conclusion: because everything else was controlled, the IV caused the change in the DV.

    The Three Essential Components: Help students remember these three pillars. First is manipulation, where the researcher deliberately changes the IV. Second is control, where all other variables are kept constant. Third is measurement, where the DV is carefully observed and recorded.

    When all three are present, we can claim causality. When any are missing, we cannot.

    Some students believe that correlation shows causation. This is incorrect. Only the experimental method establishes causality because only experiments control for alternative explanations.

    Others think that any study with numbers shows causation. This is also incorrect. Surveys and correlational studies provide valuable data but cannot establish cause and effect.

    Some confuse control with control group. This is partially correct. Control means keeping variables constant and may include a control group for comparison.

    Making It Stick: Use this simple framework when analyzing any study. (i) What did they change? That’s the IV. (ii) What did they measure? That’s the DV. (iii) What did they control? Those are the other variables. (iv.) Can we claim causation? Only if it’s a true experiment.

    The experimental method’s beauty lies in its logical simplicity. Change one variable, control all others, measure the outcome. If the outcome changes, you’ve found your cause. This simple logic is psychology’s most powerful tool for understanding the mechanisms of human behavior.

    Here’s a powerpoint presentation that you can use for teaching a lesson on the true and quasi experiment.

    True and Quasi Experiments in PsychologyDownload

  • Why Research Studies Still Matter in Teaching Psychology

    One of the quiet revolutions in teaching IB Psychology is this: our students no longer need to memorise outlines of 200 or more studies, each with two strengths and two limitations. That’s worth celebrating. It makes our subject lighter, more engaging, and far more relevant. Students can now focus on developing critical thinking, connecting concepts, and applying their knowledge rather than playing flashcard games with endless lists of studies.

    But let’s not forget: research is the scientific foundation of psychology.

    Would you teach ethics in psychology without telling your students about Little Albert and the white rat, Zimbardo’s appalling Stanford Prison Study, or Milgram’s not-so-appalling obedience experiments? Of course not. These are the stories that not only illustrate concepts but also bring to life the ethical debates that shape our subject.

    Would we introduce social identity theory without Sherif’s Robbers Cave study? Could we possibly explain observational learning without Albert Bandura’s endlessly punched Bobo doll? And when we turn to methods, what better way to anchor quasi-experiments and neuroplasticity than Eleanor Maguire’s London taxi drivers, or to illuminate the case study method than Henri Molaison, whose memory loss is legendary?

    The point is simple: research gives psychology its credibility.

    Yes, assessment criteria don’t explicitly require studies by name. Students aren’t graded on whether they remember that it was 22 boys in Sherif’s camp or 72 children in Bandura’s playroom. But to teach any of the IB Psychology concepts with integrity, we must draw upon the research that produced them. Without robust studies and their conclusions, our discipline risks floating away into abstraction, detached from the science that grounds it.

    So let’s celebrate freedom from rote memorisation, but let’s also celebrate the research itself. Studies are not an add-on; they are the very evidence that makes psychology worth studying.

  • Moving from research studies to real-world examples

    One of the most noticeable shifts in the new course is the emphasis in assessment on examples rather than memorised research studies. In Paper 1, Section A, those short 10-minute questions are marked against just two descriptors:

    1. The response demonstrates detailed knowledge relevant to the question.
    2. The example is relevant and explained.

    Note that word — example — not research study. In fact, the only time assessment criteria explicitly require reference to a research study is when it’s mentioned in the question itself (Paper 2, Section B).

    Over the years, I’ve enjoyed teaching the finer details of Henri Molaison (Scoville & Milner), Baby Albert (Watson & Rayner), Milgram, Odden & Rochat, Caspi et al… These classic studies are fascinating and still worth knowing, but the new Guide is clear: it’s example, not studies.

    Research will always be a valid and robust part of a Psychology course.

    Students often memorise outlines of these studies and then regurgitate them in the exam. That’s not the same as demonstrating real knowledge and understanding.

    This isn’t to say we should stop teaching research studies — I certainly won’t. I’ll continue to speak lovingly of the Dunedin Study, the HM case, and several others. But students and I won’t be getting anxious about memorising the number of participants in the HM case study (eh hem, that’s a little psychology research joke there), or the nationality of Dunedin Study participants, or the socioeconomic status of Kahneman and Tversky’s samples. We can still use research studies — and we should — but students won’t have to memorise the details.

    The real focus is transfer of knowledge. Taking Social Identity Theory and applying it to a bullying case in a school or an international conflict. Using Social Learning Theory to describe how a public health campaign could reduce teenage alcohol consumption. Even if the example is fictional, applying the theory to a fresh, unseen situation shows depth of understanding far better than rattling off participant numbers and procedure details.

    This shift isn’t about discarding research — it’s about using it. The research is the foundation. But in assessment, it’s the bridge from theory to application that earns top marks. And that’s a far better reflection of what it means to understand psychology.

    Discuss the role of Social Identity Theory in explaining a conflict.