Skip to main content

Evidence-Based Question (EBQ)

What leads to depression?

  • Unit 5
  • 7 points
  • About 45 minutes

You read summaries of three studies on one topic, make a claim that answers the question, then back it up twice with evidence from two different sources, explaining each piece of evidence with a different psychology concept. On the exam: Question 2 of 2 in the 70-minute free-response section (Section II); 7 points, 16.65% of the exam score. About 45 minutes, including 15 minutes to read.

The question and its sources

Read the three sources, then answer Parts A, B and C. In Parts B and C you must cite the source you use, either in parentheses, as in '(Source 1)', or in your sentence, as in 'According to Source 2, ...'. Write in complete sentences and use psychological terms. Question: Using the sources, develop and justify an argument about whether major depressive disorder is caused more by biological factors or by life experiences.

Source 1

Introduction: Researchers studied twins to estimate how much genes contribute to major depressive disorder.

Participants: 3,460 adult twin pairs (1,420 identical pairs and 2,040 fraternal pairs) aged 25 to 60, drawn from a national twin registry in Denmark (54% women). Race/ethnicity was not reported.

Method: Identical twins share all of their genes, while fraternal twins share about half. Trained interviewers used a structured diagnostic interview to determine whether each twin had ever met the criteria for major depressive disorder. The researchers then calculated how often, when one twin had the disorder, the other twin had it too.

Results and Discussion: When one identical twin had major depressive disorder, the other twin also had it 39% of the time. For fraternal twins, the figure was 18%. Among all participants, 15% had met the criteria at some point in their lives.

Source: Hypothetical study summary, written for practice (not a real published study)

Source 2

Introduction: Researchers followed young adults for eight years to see how stressful life events and family history combine to predict depression.

Participants: 1,040 adults in New Zealand followed from age 18 to age 26 (50% women). Race/ethnicity was not reported.

Method: At age 18, participants reported whether a parent had ever been treated for major depressive disorder. Each year from 21 to 25, they reported serious stressful events, such as losing a job, a breakup, the death of a loved one or being assaulted. At age 26, a clinician who did not know their earlier answers used a structured interview to determine whether they had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year.

Results and Discussion: Among participants with three or more serious stressful events, 33% of those with a parent who had been treated for depression had a major depressive episode at 26, compared with 14% of those without such a parent. Among participants with zero or one stressful event, the figures were 8% and 6%.

Source: Hypothetical study summary, written for practice (not a real published study)

Source 3

Introduction: Researchers tested whether the way students explain their failures predicts depression after a setback.

Participants: 312 first-year students (58% women) aged 18 to 20 at a university in Ireland. Race/ethnicity was not reported.

Method: At the start of the year, students completed a questionnaire about how they explain bad events, for example whether they see a failure as their own fault, as lasting forever and as affecting every part of their life ("I'm stupid, and I'll never be good at anything"), or as caused by temporary, specific circumstances ("I didn't study enough for that test"). Researchers then identified the 120 students who failed at least one major exam in their first term. Two months later, a clinician screened these students for symptoms of major depressive disorder.

Results and Discussion: Among students who failed an exam, 27% of those who tended to see failures as their own lasting, all-encompassing fault had significant depressive symptoms, compared with 9% of those who tended to explain failures by temporary, specific causes. Among students who did not fail an exam, the two groups did not differ significantly.

Source: Hypothetical study summary, written for practice (not a real published study)

Suggested time: 45 minutes

Your answers are saved in this browser as you type.

Something wrong with this question?

What's wrong?

Please don't include personal details.

Part (a)

1 point

Propose a specific, defensible claim grounded in psychological science that answers the question.

0 / 2,500 characters

Part (b)

3 points

(i) Support your claim with at least one piece of specific and relevant evidence from one of the sources. (ii) Explain how the evidence from B(i) supports your claim, using a psychological perspective, theory, concept or research finding from AP Psychology.

0 / 2,500 characters

Part (c)

3 points

(i) Support your claim with a different piece of specific and relevant evidence, taken from a different source than the one you used in Part B. (ii) Explain how the evidence from C(i) supports your claim, using a different psychological perspective, theory, concept or research finding from AP Psychology than the one you used in Part B.

0 / 2,500 characters

Checking scoring…

Scoring it yourself shows you the rubric, examples and a model answer. Try writing your answer first.