Skip to content

9990 · 1.5.2

Explanations of obsessive-compulsive disorder — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9990 Explanations of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

A patient with contamination fears believes they will cause serious illness if they do not wash hands repeatedly after touching door handles.

(a) Explain this OCD using Salkovskis's cognitive theory and the operant conditioning account. [5 marks] (b) Evaluate the serotonin explanation of OCD. [5 marks]

Show solution outline

(a) AO1 — Salkovskis (cognitive):

  • Inflated responsibility: Patient believes they have power and duty to prevent illness through washing.
  • Thought-action fusion: Touching handle linked to catastrophic outcome — intrusive contamination thought treated as threat requiring neutralisation.
  • Overestimation of threat: Exaggerated probability and severity of illness from germs.

AO1 — Operant conditioning:

  • Hand-washing reduces anxiety temporarily → negative reinforcement.
  • Ritual strengthened each repetition despite long-term maintenance of disorder.

(b) AO3 — Serotonin explanation evaluation:

  • Strengths: SSRIs/clomipramine reduce OCD symptoms in RCTs — pharmacological evidence for serotonin involvement.
  • Strengths: Consistent with comorbidity with depression/anxiety (shared serotonin system).
  • Limitations: Drugs take weeks to work; not all patients respond — incomplete account.
  • Limitations: Reductionist — does not explain content of obsessions (why contamination not violence in this case) — cognitive theory needed.
  • Correlation vs causation: Low serotonin may be effect of chronic anxiety, not cause.

Judgement: Serotonin explanation supported by treatment evidence but insufficient alone — cognitive and learning accounts explain symptom content and maintenance.

Worked example 2

A researcher conducts a twin study to investigate the genetic basis of OCD. They recruit 150 monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs and 200 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs. They find a concordance rate of 62% for MZ twins and 29% for DZ twins.

(a) Calculate how many MZ twin pairs were concordant for OCD. [2 marks] (b) Explain how these results support the genetic explanation for OCD. [4 marks]

Show solution outline

(a) Calculation of concordant MZ pairs:

  • Step 1: Identify the total number of MZ twin pairs in the study.
    • Total MZ pairs = 150
  • Step 2: Identify the concordance rate for MZ twins.
    • MZ Concordance Rate = 62% or 0.62
  • Step 3: Apply the rate to the total number of pairs.
    • Number of concordant pairs = Total MZ pairs × MZ Concordance Rate
    • Calculation: 150 × 0.62 = 93
  • Answer: 93 MZ twin pairs were concordant for OCD.

(b) Explanation of results:

  • AO2 (Application): The results show that the concordance rate for MZ twins (62%) is more than double the rate for DZ twins (29%).
  • AO1 (Knowledge): This difference is significant because MZ twins share 100% of their genes, whereas DZ twins share only about 50% of their genes, like regular siblings.
  • AO3 (Evaluation): The much higher rate in the genetically identical twins strongly suggests that genes play a significant role in creating a vulnerability to developing OCD. If the disorder were caused purely by environmental factors, the concordance rates for MZ and DZ twins would be expected to be much more similar, as both types of twins are raised in similar environments.
  • AO3 (Further Evaluation): However, the concordance rate for MZ twins is not 100%. The fact that it is 62% and not 100% indicates that genetics cannot be the only factor. This supports an interactionist view, such as the diathesis-stress model, where an individual's genetic predisposition (diathesis) must be triggered by an environmental or psychological stressor for OCD to develop.