Describe what psychologists have discovered about strategies for promoting health.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2021). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [0] (a) Strategies for promoting health, including the following • fear arousal (Janis and Feshbach, 1953; Cowpe, 1989) • Yale model of communication • providing information (Lewin, 1992)
2. [0] (a) Fear arousal – Janis and Feshback, 1953 Independent groups design experiment using 200 High School students (mean age 15 years) each exposed to lecture and administration of questionnaire to record emotional reactions 3 times. Group 1 (50) – High Fear Arousal Group – given lecture on dental hygiene and its effects including slides showing diseased mouths and explanation of diseases including cancer and consequences. Group 2 (50) – Moderate Fear Arousal Group – given similar lecture as group one and similar picture but less disturbing. Group 3 (50) – Minimal Fear Arousal Group – Lecture about teeth and cavities, without pictures or consequences. Control group (50) – given lecture about the structure of the human eye. Questionnaire given one week before lecture, after lecture and one week after lecture to gauge emotional reaction and level of conformity. Minimal fear arousal most effective in encouraging students to adopt the oral hygiene recommendations.
3. [0] (a) Fear arousal – Cowpe, 1989 Aim was to test effectiveness of advertising campaign. Two 60 second adverts made showing the cause of chip pan fires (overfilling and inattendance). Shown in ten UK regions between 1976–1984. 12% drop in fires and high levels of awareness of the dangers of chip pan fires reported.
4. [0] (a) Yale model of communication The source/the communicator – who is giving the message; are they credible, trustworthy? If a trustworthy person such as a doctor or scientist is giving the information to the person this is more likely to bring about behaviour change. The message/the communication/the context – is it clear and direct, one or two sided, vivid and colourful? If is the clear and attention-grabbing health message the person is more likely to pay attention to it (and this could then bring about change in their health behaviour) The medium – radio, TV, print, one-to-one, personal. This depends on the target audience. Health promotion aimed at young people could be best place on social media whereas older people might be better on TV or in the newspaper. The target/the audience – Who is the message aimed at? Is the audience sympathetic, knowledgeable? If the audience is not knowledgeable it is best to keep the message simple or show images (such as with a stopping smoking campaign that shows images of the damage caused by smoking).
5. [0] (a) The situation – where will the message be received, home, cinema, doctors? Where are the people most likely to be receptive to the health promotion message? Is it when they feel relaxed at home or when they are thinking about their health behaviour, e.g. at the doctor’s surgery. The candidate might also consider the stages of the process (e.g. attention, comprehension and acceptance/reaction).
6. [0] (a) Providing information - Lewin, 1992 – (not 2002) 176 patients who recently suffered a heart attack were randomly allocated to either 1) self-help rehab programme 2) standard care plus a placebo package of information and informal counselling. Psychological adjustments better in the rehab group at one year. Significantly fewer appointments with GPs and fewer readmitted to hospital in first six months.
7. [0] (a) Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table A.
8. [0] (a) Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
9. [0] (b) A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: • Named issue – Longitudinal – Strengths include that it shows change in behaviour over time, often can get more detail due to the length of time spent with participants. Weaknesses include that it involves a lot of commitment/time/cost of the psychologist and their university/funding body and participant attrition. Cowpe study took place over from 1976–1984. Lewin 1992 – over six months, Lewin 2002 - over 13 months. Likely to argue that Janis and Feshbeck is snapshot as just over a week so cannot measure long term changes in behaviour.
10. [0] (b) Usefulness
11. [0] (b) Generalisability of the samples used in the studies.
12. [0] (b) Qualitative and quantitative data collection methods
13. [0] (b) Ecological validity of the studies.
14. [0] (b) Holistic nature of Yale Model of Communication
15. [0] (b) Individual vs situational explanations
16. [0] (b) Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table B.
17. [0] (b) Other appropriate responses should also be credited.