D 3 Pysch Sur 2205 1b e

Psychology higher level and standard level
Timezone 2
To protect the integrity of the examinations, increasing use is being made of time zone variants of examination papers. By
using variants of the same examination paper candidates in one part of the world will not always be taking the same
examination paper as candidates in other parts of the world. A rigorous process is applied to ensure that the papers are
comparable in terms of difficulty and syllabus coverage, and measures are taken to guarantee that the same grading
scripts for the different versions of the examination papers. For the May 22
examination session the IB has produced time zone variants of Psychology higher level paper one and standard level paper
one.
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022

International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
May 2022 subject report Psychology TZ2 HL/SL
Contents
Grade boundaries 3
Higher level and standard level internal assessment 4
Higher level paper one 8
Standard level paper one 11
Higher level paper two 14
Page 2 / 18
Grade boundaries
This DP/CP subject report contains overall subject boundaries only, unlike previous reports where
component boundaries were also published; component boundaries for this session are available in IBIS.
The IB advises schools not to use component boundaries for this session as direct indicators of academic
standards for future exam preparation because they have been set in response to the particular needs of
the cohort. Two significant conditions which do not normally feature in grade boundary setting have had
to be satisfied during the boundary setting for the M22 session: the need to apply reasonable standards
to adjusted assessment models for students who have restricted access to learning during the COVID
pandemic and the need to maintain parity with students who undertook the non-examination route.
Higher level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mark range: 0-8 9 - 18 19 - 32 33 - 45 46 - 58 59 - 71 72 - 100
Standard level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mark range: 0-8 9 - 19 20 - 30 31 - 44 45 - 55 56 - 69 70 - 100
Page 3 / 18
Higher level and standard level internal assessment

The range and suitability of the work submitted
Most of the internal assessments (IAs) submitted were experimental, with a few exceptions that did not
manipulate an independent variable, or were quasi-experimental, with age, culture or gender etc being
compared. There were also some survey studies conducted online where there were not two identifiable
conditions and therefore no manipulated IV. There were some candidates who chose conformity studies
or engaged in unethical practices.
The IAs were typically from the Cognitive Approach with a few from the Sociocultural Approach. Most
candidates chose to adapt and partially replicate an original study, though there were a few good IAs that
used a background theory or model to develop their own study, usually on memory. There was a wide
variety of topics, including reconstructive memory, transactive memory, social facilitation and selective
attention. These and other background theories were usually identified correctly, though not always very
was usually sound. Studies into the chameleon effect were often the weakest, with no relevant
background theory identified, and no clear IV. Some candidates also struggled with identifying what was
being tested in prospect theory (framing effect).
The better IAs only had two conditions; this is strongly encouraged for future candidates; there is no need
to have more than two conditions, as this makes the IA far more challenging for the candidates.
Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion I: Introduction
The biggest challenge was describing the theory and linking it to the investigation. Many reports reflected
en a relevant model or theory was presented it was often not

in sufficient detail and candidates struggled to explain the link to their own investigation. Candidates
often wrote long summaries of the original study but did not use the study effectively to explain the
theory.
The aim of the study was better written than in previous years and the relevance was usually explained,
linking their explanation clearly to their own investigation. Similarly, the IV and DV were operationalized
correctly in the majority of cases.
However, hypotheses were often extremely unclear and in many cases incorrect, especially when the
candidate had attempted to manipulate the IV several times. If the hypothesis is directional or non-
directional, the inferential statistics calculations should reflect this with appropriate one-tailed or two-
tailed tests.
Finally, many introductions lacked clear focus and organization, making them difficult to assess.
Criterion II: Exploration

The better Exploration sections were organized by the criterion descriptors. Most candidates were able to
describe or at least state all aspects of exploration (design, sampling technique, participants, controlled
variables and materials) but struggled to explain why they chose them. Also, there was a tendency to use
generic reasons for their choice, such as choosing an independent samples design to avoid practice effect,
without explaining the relevance of this to their experiment.
Page 4 / 18
There was some confusion between opportunity and volunteer sampling, and random allocation to
conditions was sometimes mistaken for random sampling. Unless gender is relevant to the experiment,
and that is not the case in almost all of the IA research, there is no need to keep the gender ratios equal.
Some samples were too small for the data to be reliable such as 6 in a repeated measures design or
chosen in total for an independent samples design. Having such small samples increases the margin of
error. If possible 10 participants should be in each condition (repeated measures) or group (independent
samples).
It is recommended to organize the informed consent form and the debriefing sheet as separate ethical
considerations, and not confuse them with the necessary materials to conduct the experiment, such as
the word list, video shown, or pictures that were used. Materials were often listed, but it was not explained
why they were chosen. With controlled variables, it is not enough to just state that the experiment was
There should be a procedure in this section, as this will be discussed in the Evaluation section.
Criterion III: Analysis

It is clear that the simpler the experiment, the better the Analysis section. There were many very strong
analyses and in nearly all of these there had been just two different conditions of the IV and one measured
DV. The Analysis requires one appropriate measure of central tendency and one matching measure of
dispersion, one clearly labelled graph of the measure of central tendency, and one appropriate and
correctly applied inferential statistical test. All findings need to be interpreted and the inferential statistics
should be linked to the hypothesis. This can only be done tentatively with the descriptive statistics, and is
not expected. Again, the best Analysis sections were where candidates had organized this by the criterion
descriptors.
Most candidates used appropriate descriptive statistics, basing their choice on the level of the data. Many
more than previously used Likert-type scales to measure their DV, and correctly used the median, but then
used the standard deviation as the measure of dispersion rather than using the inter-quartile ratio. When
reporting the results, the data is clearer if corrected to two or three significant figures. Descriptive statistics
were often not interpreted, and instead just stated. Most candidates included the raw data in the
Appendices, but many IAs did not include the complete inferential statistical calculations, or at least a
screenshot of the results from an online calculator. This is essential for the examiner, otherwise it cannot
be determined if the calculations presented are accurate.
Graphs often lacked accurate labelling of the axes, though most reflected the research hypothesis, and
also there were many that presented histograms rather than bar graphs. The bars should not be touching.
Only the main measure of central tendency used should be graphed, not mean, median and mode.
Many candidates are still employing the use of the t-test without clear justification. If parametric
assumptions are not met, a t-test is not the appropriate choice. The statements of significance were
usually clearly presented, though there was a lack of understanding that accepting the null hypothesis is
not an admission of failure.
Criterion IV: Evaluation

Candidates should discuss their findings in relation to the background theory or model. Many candidates
engaged in deep discussion in regards to the replicated study (which is not needed), and either ignored
the background theory or model, or just mentioned it in passing. Several candidates decided to ignore the
non-significance of their findings and declare that the descriptive statistics supported the hypothesis, and
that their findings therefore supported the theory. This is incorrect, and seemed to be based on a fear that
accepting the null hypothesis meant their experiment was faulty in some way.
Page 5 / 18
Evaluations were often superficial. It is important that there is a clear link between the evaluation points
and the candidate for example, independent
samples avoid order effects But this was not explained with regard to the study.
A common error was saying that a strength was that ethical guidelines were followed or that there were
standardized directions. These are requirement for an experiment and meeting these requirements
cannot be seen as a strength.
There was confusion between design and procedure, and often candidates did not evaluate all three
required aspects (design, procedure and sample) but instead focused only on one or two. Many candidates
incorrectly wrote that a limitation was that the groups were not balanced according to numbers, gender
or age. If there was random allocation to conditions, the groups should not be balanced. In most studies
of memory, there is no indication that gender is relevant, and an age difference of one year also should
make no difference at all.
Often, modifications were general and not linked to the limitations of the investigation and/or were
superficial, for example, include a larger sample size.
A concerning issue was that many experiments seemed to have taken place in noisy corridors, or in the
grade, and as such candidates should be supported by the school in being given sufficient time and an
appropriate location. These came up as limitations, but are errors in planning or conducting the
experiment. Similarly, there were some comments about being online with anxieties about participants
possible cheating or having problems with internet connections. Again, these are not limitations of the
actual design, procedure or sample.
Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

It is essential that teachers are fully aware of the requirements and assessment criteria for the internal
assessment. Sharing the assessment criteria with candidates would also potentially help them understand
the requirements more fully.
It is important that the IA is not the first time that a candidate has carried out an experiment and written
up a report. As this is an assessment, the candidate should need minimal guidance in the preparation,
execution and analysis of their study.
Teachers should ensure that candidates include a relevant model or theory in the Introduction with a clear
link to their investigation.
Candidates should practice hypotheses writing and clearly understand what is required in order to
operationalize the IV and DV. Candidates should also be clear about the direction of the hypotheses and
how this will in turn affect the statistical calculations.
Candidates must clearly understand the difference between describe and explain; they should make clear
why each component of Exploration was chosen, that is
why this sampling procedure would have limitations in context to the experiment being conducted. The
concept of controls needs to be a more integrated part of the discussion of research throughout the
course. Asking candidates what controls a researcher would have to consider will help prepare them for
this aspect of the assessment.
More guidance should be given for descriptive and/or inferential statistics, ensuring that candidates
understand the findings in relation to the hypotheses and the background theory or model. It is
recommended that teachers go through the process of basic descriptive statistics with candidates and
also teach them not only how to choose a relevant inferential test but help them to understand why the
Page 6 / 18
test is appropriate. Often candidates conducted an analysis which has been inaccurate, and that
inaccuracy was missed by the teacher. Knowing and learning about statistics is essential for both the
teacher and the candidate.
Please ensure candidates use approved sites to calculate their inferential statistics and also check whether
they have plugged in their values accurately. Additionally, some sites have default settings and if
candidates are not conscientious, it results in erroneous screenshots and/or results.
Candidates need more guidance on discussing meaningful, relevant strengths and limitations of their
investigation, and making a connection with the modifications to address those specific limitations.
Further guidance should be provided on how to follow the IA formatting requirements. Many did not
adhere to the referencing guidelines or the appendices were incomplete, e.g. no raw data, no standardized
instructions. Very few references lists were complete, with the original study referenced. It is a
requirement that all research presented is cited. Examiners cannot click on links to materials or sources.
Therefore all materials, consent forms and references need not to be in the form of hyperlinks, but to be
physically present.
he school code, school
name, etc. The word count should be stated on the cover page and the report should adhere to the word
limit.
Page 7 / 18
Higher level paper one

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the
candidates
Many candidates demonstrated limited evidence of critical thinking and did not apply psychological
terminology correctly. Many candidates also found it difficult to write out definitions of concepts. Many
descriptions were redundant (for example, social categorization is when we categorize social groups) or
lacked clarity and development.
Many candidates wrote detailed descriptions of the studies, but then did not link the study back to the
question. Responses often did not explain key concepts relevant to the question, leading to low marks for
criterion B. Critical thinking was often generic and not specific to the specific study.
The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
There was an impressive variety of psychological research used in the extended response questions. Some
responses demonstrated up-to-date, in-depth understanding of relevant research and were able to
describe aims, procedures, results and conclusions clearly and effectively. Writing was generally clear and
well developed.
The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

questions
Section A
Question 1
Many candidates wrote strong descriptions of neuroplasticity including the concepts of long-term
potentiation, dendritic branching, and neural pruning. Weaker responses provided only a very basic
definition referring to sponse to internal and external stimuli.
Research was well described but often the findings were not clearly stated or lacked precision with regard
to the actual changes in the brain.
Question 2
Many candidates were able to describe a model of memory in good detail and describe a relevant study.
The link between the study and the model could often be better explained. Some candidates simply
created a diagram of the model with no description. No marks were awarded for drawings without
explanations.
Alt
was not described in any detail. The command term describe requires that key aspects of the theory with
regard to encoding and retrieval be presented.
Question 3
There were many strong, well-detailed descriptions of social identity theory. There were also many
candidates who simply listed several relevant terms without demonstrating understanding of their
meaning.
Page 8 / 18
some candidates struggled to clearly and

accurately outline the procedure and findings of the study.
Section B
Question 4
There were some strong responses to this question primarily focused on either the use of an MRI or an
fMRI. Some candidates misunderstood that although MRI and fMRI are the same machine, they are still
two different techniques that are used in research. In responses with more than one technique, only the
first one was assessed.
Strong responses demonstrated understanding of how the technology works and/or how the data is
interpreted (for example, pixel counting, voxel-based morphometry (VBM)).
Strong critical thinking addressed concerns about researcher bias, ability to establish causality, levels of
internal versus ecological validity, or the role that cost plays on sample sizes. Weaker responses tended to
focus on superficial evaluation points regarding metal implants and claustrophobia which were not highly
relevant to the research presented.
The command term evaluat requires that both strengths and limitations be discussed. Often
themselves, are not strengths. In addition, many candidates argued that because a st
is quasi-experimental.
Question 5
There were many strong responses that clearly discussed one or more studies related to the influence of
technology on cognitive processes. Some candidates failed to identify a cognitive process when
candidates focused on the role of social media on mental health which is not the focus of the question.
Stronger candidates made explicit links between the research and models of memory, attention or
decision making that is, they explained why technology may have this effect on cognition. Some
candidates discussed theories, such as transactive memory, but then did not use any research that
demonstrated this theory. This earned low marks for criterion B.
Some research was quite complex and was misunderstood by candidates for example, there were many
inaccurate explanations of Rosser et al. (2007).
Question 6
There were mainly strong responses to this essay, focusing on the role of cultural dimensions, cultural
norms, and acculturation on behaviour and/or cognition.
When discussing acculturation, many candidates did not focus on the effect of acculturation, but rather
on protective factors against acculturative stress. Stronger responses addressed the role of acculturation
on mental health, obesity, or tolerance to other cultures.
Critical thinking was often not well developed, focusing solely on the problem of generalizability. This
was often a superficial approach, failing to note that the study was qualitative and did not have the goal
ulty of isolating cultural factors as
variables, the methodology applied in studying cultural effects, and the dynamic nature of culture, making
it a difficult construct to measure.
Page 9 / 18

• Practise writing definitions of key concepts. Many candidates struggle to explain terms without using
the term itself
• Always link the critical thinking back to the study, rather than making very general claims. Simply stating
that because a study is done in a lab means that it has high internal validity is not correct. Studies in
laboratories can have compromised internal validity.
Page 10 / 18
Standard level paper one

candidates
Many candidates struggled with understanding the demands of the questions, often using a generic
approach to answering questions. This involved describing one or more relevant concepts by repeating
much of the language from the question. Stronger responses were able to describe psychological
concepts in detail, using relevant terminology.
Many terms were used without proper explanation and evidence that the candidates understood their
meaning; some common examples included: internal / external validity, ecological validity, construct
validity, generalizability.
Candidates were also prone to writing generic statements which demonstrated a lack of understanding
with regards to critical thinking. Ethical statements were too broad and overarching and were not linked
to the demands of the question.
prepared
There was an impressive variety of psychological research used across a number of the questions. Some
responses demonstrated up-to-date, in-depth understanding of relevant research and were able to
describe aims, procedures, results and conclusions clearly and effectively.

questions
Section A
Question 1
Most candidates were able to provide good descriptions of neuroplasticity and related concepts. Many
candidates clearly understood the concepts of neural networks, long-term potentiation and dendritic
branching. Weaker responses briefly described neuroplasticity as the brain s ability to adapt or change
due to environmental influences, injury or learning a new skill. Weaker responses lacked use of relevant
psychological terminology.
The vast majority of candidates used either Maguire or Draganski as their supporting research, however
descriptions were often lacking in precision with regards to the findings and conclusions.
Question 2
The majority of responses demonstrated a strong understanding of a variety of memory models, by far the
most common being the multi-store model (MSM) and the working memory model (WMM). A wide variety
of relevant research was clearly described and linked back to the appropriate model.
Some candidates named one memory model and then proceeded to describe another. A noticeable
amount of responses confused the MSM with the WMM or used a supporting study which in fact
supported the other model.
Page 11 / 18
Question 3
There were many good responses to this question. The majority of candidates were able to provide a
detailed description of social identity theory (SIT)and its component parts. There was also a wide variety
of appropriate research described, with many responses
experiments.
Stronger responses described the aims and procedures well, clearly linking the study back to SIT. There
were a noticeable amount of candidates who mistakenly described Social Cognitive Theory, incorrectly
Section B
Question 4
There were many strong responses to this question where candidates demonstrated solid understanding
of a relevant brain imaging technique. The vast majority of candidates used either MRI or fMRI and were
able to describe how these scans worked in an impressive level of detail.
Stronger responses described in detail how MRI / fMRI scans use magnetic fields and radio waves to
produce detailed images of the brain or how fMRI scans measure changes in blood flow. Many stronger
scripts described how MRI / fMRI scans show either the structure and/or functions of the brain. Strong
responses also described how the process of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is used to interpret data.
-alone research method, describing
the use of experiments or case studies for example.
There were a number of responses that confused MRI and fMRI studies, for example, Maguire and
Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic
evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.
Question 5
There were many strong responses to this question, with the vast majority of candidates using Flashbulb
Memory when describing the influence of emotion on cognitive processes. There were many in-depth
evaluations from candidates, whereas weaker responses were lacking in developed strengths and
weaknesses.
There was a good variety of research used in this response. Most candidates used Brown & Kulik, Sharot et
detail, again the focus here was not always on the evaluation of the research and candidates lost marks
because of this.
The lack of well-described critical thinking was once again evident. Many responses merely provided some
simple evaluation statements of the research studies, did not use terminology effectively or made
evaluative comments with no clear explanation or link to the specific study that was being explained.
Question 6
Stronger responses to the question primarily discussed the influences of cultural dimensions
(individualism and collectivism) on conformity rates or flashbulb memories. Candidates who used
acculturation often focused on protective factors against acculturative stress and not the effects of
acculturation.
Page 12 / 18
Weaker responses described irr

doll study or anecdotal evidence in support of their answer.
Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic
evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.

• Focused and explicit teaching of the command terms would be beneficial as candidates often are
unable to evaluate, describe or explain effectively.
• Candidates would benefit from explicit teaching of how to begin a response, addressing the command
term directly, avoiding unnecessary introductions of related history and concepts which do not add to
the response.
• Effective use of structured writing should be encouraged as many responses are not using logical
paragraphs. This hinders the flow of the essay and also prevents the separation of ideas and concepts
making it difficult for the examiner to follow.
• The use of critical thinking on a more sophisticated level would benefit the majority of candidates. There
is a distinct lack of meaningful evaluation of research, theory and concepts. Broad statements about
ecological validity, control of variables, use of experimental methods, cause and effect and lack of
generalization of results offer little critical insight to a response.
Page 13 / 18
Higher level paper two

General comments
There was a wide range of quality in the responses; from rather poor to well-focused and organized essays
reflecting clear understanding of the question. The general standard though, was pleasingly fair, which
suggested solid teaching and good preparation of candidates. It was recognized that candidates had been
taught relevant topics and made huge efforts to present their knowledge.
candidates
A major weakness was that many candidates did not seem to successfully unpack the question being
asked and as a result their answers did not focus on the question. This was also seen in the introductions
written, which in general did not show explanation of the issue in the question and/or focus on the
command term in the question.
Some examiners reported there was the tendency for many candidates to present responses to questions
that were not actually set with a hope that these essays would gain a sufficient number of marks.
Many essays were not finished or lacked organization. Although essays rarely lacked knowledge, the
knowledge provided was not addressing the exact specific question. There seemed to be little evidence
of knowledge of relevant theories/explanations/treatments and there was generally little evidence of
candidates constructing sophisticated, elaborated critiques.
Questions requiring candidates to evaluate studies were especially difficult for candidates. For example,
question 2 regarding evaluation of one or more studies investigating prevalence rates was often times
discuss factors that affect
Another area that appeared challenging was in the option Developmental psychology. Candidates often
misinterpreted question 4 which asked them to discuss one or more theory of brain development. In some
theories of cognitive development without linking this to the development of the brain and thus gave
In addition, overall critical thinking stills seemed to be weak for some of the candidates it was often
presented in a disconnected manner. Critical thinking was often at a superficial level and sometimes
seemed to be a stock response which was used regardless of the question. Often this critical thinking was
just a statement with no real depth of explanation or justification. Evaluation rarely ventured beyond basic
statements of strengths and limitations of study methods.
prepared
In general, the questions in Psychology of Human Relationships were well-answered. There seemed to be
an understanding of the question, the content, and the studies used for support. For the Abnormal
Psychology section, stronger candidates did a very good job selecting studies, content, and/or treatments.
For less well-prepared candidates this was not as true and candidates clearly lacked understanding of
some relevant terms such as validity and reliability of diagnosis or prevalence rates of disorders.
Page 14 / 18

questions
Question 1
Generally responses to this question were not very well done, as candidates tended to talk about factors
influencing validity and/or reliability of diagnosis. Many candidates also treated this as a potential
question, and this resulted in an essay detailing the procedure of the study,
but often with little focus on findings, implications of the study or evaluation. Well-written responses
reflected rather detailed knowledge of studies
reliability of diagnosis of randomly selected patients in a hospital in New York, and Bo -
cultural study on the validity of the Western key concept of PTSD.
Question 2
With some exceptions responses to this question were done rather poorly, as responses often failed to
address the question. A large number of responses provided full essays explaining factors that influence
the prevalence rate of one or more psychological disorder. In their responses candidates provided minimal
reference to studies. In addition, critical thinking was usually not linked to the question.
In high quality responses candidates chose one specific disorder (usually depression or PTSD) and clearly
selected one or more studies and evaluated them in detail. Popular choices were: Garrison et al. (1995)
investigating the incidence of PTSD in adolesc
study of gender vulnerability to depression, and Nolen-
depression.
Question 3
This question was less popular than the other two questions in the Abnormal Psychology section but the
quality of responses was often good. Stronger responses reflected an understanding of treatment
methods and how the effectiveness of treatments can be assessed. There were some pleasing responses
which indicated appreciation of difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of treatment and ethical
considerations concerned with treatments/therapies. Weaker responses focused on etiology of disorders
or research investigating factors leading to development of disorders but failing to link this to treatments.
Question 4
Unfortunately, many candidates misread or misinterpreted the question within this question all words
important aspect of the question and their responses were responses which reflected general knowledge
of Developmental Psychology but not knowledge relevant to this question. Very strong candidates
answered this question particularly well, while candidates who were not as well prepared tended to do
quite poorly here. The biggest weakness of some candidates was totally misunderstanding the question
this relates to the development of the brain. Other candidates recognized that the question had to focus
on brain development but could only provide knowledge and evaluation of studies without providing a
coherent explanation of how the brain develops. There were some (although not many) excellent
responses to this question in which candidates clearly provided knowledge of theory of neuroplasticity
and/or the maturational theory of brain development. Candidates in these responses also provided good
knowledge of relevant studies investigating how the brain develops in different stages.
Page 15 / 18
Question 5
This was not a popular choice. Strengths included the correct identification of studies to illustrate factors
which tend to influence cognitive and/or social development. Focus was often on trauma/deprivation,
peers, poverty and nutrition as well as educational programmes/support from parents and educators.
Weaknesses included a lack of focus on studies.
Question 6
This was a popular choice within the option. Occasionally examiners reported reading quite inspiring
of attachment and/or on Ainsworth's theory of attachment styles with evidence of well-selected studies
that were focused on the question. However, some responses to this question provided studies on
attachment with minimal explanation of the concept of attachment,
rhesus monkeys without linking the findings to attachment in humans.
Question 7
Although few candidates attempted this question, stronger candidates formed a good discussion of
health promotion programmes how they are conducted and a clear account of factors that impact the
effectiveness of these programmes. Popular choices were: TRUTH campaign, anti-smoking campaign (Sly
et al., 2002; Schum and Gold, 2007); National Tobacco Campaign, Australia (Woodward, 2003); NHS
Diabetes Prevention Programme, England and/or different food labelling programmes.
Weaker candidates made a more general attempt, discussing health in general and factors that lead to
health/disease.
Question 8
This was the least popular question in this paper. When it was addressed it tended to attract well-prepared
candidates who clearly focused on studies. A popular choice were studies related to rising prevalence rates
of obesity and/or rising prevalence rates of smoking.
Question 9
This was the most popular question for the Health Psychology option. Answers ranged from rudimentary
to quite good, where knowledge and understanding were presented with clarity and studies were used
to draw out salient critical points.
Strengths for this question included candidates choosing mostly appropriate health problems and
studies. Weaknesses appeared as a lack of critical thinking when responding to this question or overly
focusing the critical thinking on research methods of studies investigating the topic but not linking this to
the biopsychosocial model. Some responses gained fewer marks for criterion D as they only offered
strengths of the model and ignored limitations.
Question 10
This was a very popular question probably the most popular question within the exam. Candidates
provided responses which were clearly focused on the question and in general seemed well prepared for
this question. A number of different explanations were provided, including but not limited to:
• social exchange theory
• equity theory
• attribution theory
• evolutionary explanations such as mate retention
• patterns of communication
Page 16 / 18
• attachment styles
• fatal attraction theory
Strengths included correct discussion of these explanations in many different ways such as: supporting
and/or contradictory evidence; methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research into the
explanations for why relationships change or end; cultural/gender considerations and offering alternative
explanations.
Weaknesses were rare, but some candidates had problems providing explanations and decided to solely
focus on research studies and findings. Some weak responses tended to provide long accounts with
general knowledge of the topic.
Question 11
This was a popular question but still the least popular question within the option. Candidates generated
answers which tended to be too general and lacking a specific focus on which ethical considerations are
relevant or problematic in studies investigating group dynamics. Often responses provided vague
responses addressing general ethical considerations but failed to apply this knowledge when
discussing/evaluating
competition in groups in a lot of responses candidates offered long and detailed descriptions of the
procedure of the study but failed to address which ethical considerations were or were not addressed.
Evidence of specific knowledge relevant to the question was too often provided in form of a simple
statement that informed parental consent was obtained.
Question 12
This was also a very popular question. Overall, responses reflected that candidates understood the
question and could provide classic studies to illustrate prosocial behaviour. Most who attempted this
question did fairly well. Responses provided many different studies popular choices were:
• ld experiment on factors involved in helping behaviour
• -
rearing practices
• d escape based on the
empathy-altruism theory
•
• -cultural differences in helping behaviour
In the majority of cases, studies were correctly described, though not always fully evaluated. Weaker
responses tended to focus more on presenting factors influencing prosocial behaviour or on theories
explaining prosocial behaviour.
Many responses provided clear evidence of critical thinking by offering:
• methodological and ethical considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• supporting and/or contradictory findings

pilot by providing a
essay. Teachers should continue to emphasize what each command term requires and
not merely attempting to adapt the question to what they know.
Page 17 / 18
Examiners recognized issues with development of a coherent response. Responses often provided many
repetitive points, especially as a conclusion. Candidates need to develop writing skills which will help
them remain focused on the question in all parts of the essay. This means that they should outline the
response in the introduction making sure to define essential psychological terms and list key research
which will be used in the response. Within the response, the focus should be maintained on the question
and at the end candidates need to provide a clear conclusion to obtain the highest marks. This strategy
will help candidates gain full marks for criterion A and E. Coupled with this is having candidates learn to
outline their thoughts prior to responding to the question. This task will not come easy to all candidates,
but this will lead to a response that is generally clear, well organized, and much more focused.
Many examiners recognized critical thinking was attempted but not well developed or justified. In
addition, relevant studies were used in responses but responses failed to link the studies to the arguments
presented in the response. Although there is a general improvement in the scope and relevance of
research used to answer questions, it would be beneficial for teachers to spend additional time having
their candidates provide relevant evidence of critical thinking. Many times, only methodology was
addressed. A far stronger response, especially in terms of criterion D would be a more complete analysis
and evaluation of the studies provided.
While answering the questions, candidates must ensure that the overall response is focused on the
question and that the command term is reflected in the response. For example, when the focus is to
discuss ethical considerations then the critical thinking is to discuss the issues and consequences of ethical
concerns and not the research methods alone. Research methods can be discussed only if clearly linked
to an ethical concern or strength.
Teachers need to make sure that their approach in terms of teaching is focused on the relevance of
research and empirical findings. Teachers should explain the acceptable methods, where and why these
methods are used, and the strengths and limitations of each method. Studies should be presented as
examples of the research methods. There should also be an understanding of which studies are not
considered research methods in their own right, but as part of a larger scope of research.
Teachers are advised to pay more attention to past papers and markschemes these illustrate the best
approaches to addressing question specific commands.
Page 18 / 18

D 3 Pysch Sur 2205 1b e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D 3 Pysch Sur 2205 1b e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D 3 Pysch Sur 2205 1b e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology higher level and standard level

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022

Higher level overall

Mark range: 0-8 9 - 18 19 - 32 33 - 45 46 - 58 59 - 71 72 - 100

Standard level overall

Mark range: 0-8 9 - 19 20 - 30 31 - 44 45 - 55 56 - 69 70 - 100

Higher level and standard level internal assessment

Candidate performance against each criterion

en a relevant model or theory was presented it was often not

Criterion II: Exploration

Criterion III: Analysis

Criterion IV: Evaluation

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Higher level paper one

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

some candidates struggled to clearly and

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Standard level paper one

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

Weaker responses described irr

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Higher level paper two

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

not merely attempting to adapt the question to what they know.

You might also like