OXFORD IB PREPARED

PSYCHOLOGY

IB DIPLO MA PRO GRAMME

Sergey Bylikin
Brian Murphy
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a
registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in
the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2020
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First published in 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University
Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms
agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above
should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at
the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must
impose this same condition on any acquirer.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
978-0-19-843416-0
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Paper used in the production of this book is a natural, recyclable
product made from wood grown in sustainable forests.
The manufacturing process conforms to the environmental regulations
of the country of origin.
Printed in China
Acknowledgements
Photo credits:
Cover: Lisa Alisa/Alamy Stock Photo.

Photos: p31: ZEPHYR/Science Photo Library; p37: Vasiliy Koval/

Shutterstock; p56: Dean Drobot/Shutterstock; p73: Orbon Alija/
iStockphoto; p75: Recep-bg/iStockphoto; p92: H.S. Photos/Alamy Stock
Photo; p96: Big_and_serious/iStockphoto; p112: Monkey Business
Images/Shutterstock; p114: pixelfusion3d/iStockphoto; p115: The
nature of love. Harlow, Harry F. American Psychologist, Vol 13(12), Dec
1958, 673-685/Public Domain; p116: FatCamera/iStockphoto; p131:
Ivan Smuk/Shutterstock; p133: Carolyn Jenkins/Alamy Stock Photo;
p142: Mavo/Shutterstock; p150: RichardBakerStreetPhotography/
Alamy Stock Photo; p152: SolStock/iStockphoto.
Artwork by Thomson and Q2A Media Services Pvt. Ltd.

Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders of material

reproduced in this book. Any comissions will be rectified in
subsequent printings if notice is given to the publisher.
 Contents

Introduction v Part 4: Sociocultural approach

to behaviour
Part 1: General guidance
4.1 Social identity theory 67
1.1 The structure of exam papers 1
4.2 Social cognitive theory 69
1.2 How exam questions will be formulated 3
4.3 Formation of stereotypes and their
1.3 Deciphering assessment criteria 8 effects on behaviour 70
1.4 Structuring an essay 14 4.4 Culture and its influence on behaviour
1.5 Command terms and how to and cognition 71
approach them 20
4.5 Cultural dimensions 72
1.6 Analysis of common mistakes 25
4.6 Enculturation 73
4.7 Acculturation 74
Part 2: Biological approach 4.8 The influence of globalization on
to behaviour individual behaviour (HL only) 75
2.1 Localization of function 26 Sample questions 77
2.2 Neuroplasticity 27
2.3 Neurotransmitters and their effects Part 5: Abnormal psychology
on behaviour 28
5.1 Normality versus abnormality 88
2.4 Techniques used to study the brain
in relation to behaviour 30 5.2 Classification systems 89
2.5 Hormones and their effects 5.3 Prevalence rates and disorders 90
on behaviour 31 5.4 Validity and reliability of diagnosis 92
2.6 Pheromones and their effects
on behaviour 32 5.5 The role of clinical biases in diagnosis 93
2.7 Genes and their effects on behaviour 33 5.6 Explanations for disorders 94
2.8 Genetic similarity 34 5.7 Assessing the effectiveness of
2.9 Evolutionary explanations for treatment 96
behaviour 35 5.8 Biological treatment 97
2.10 The role of animal research in 5.9 Psychological treatment 98
understanding human behaviour
(HL only) 36 5.10 The role of culture in treatment 99
Sample questions 38 Sample questions 100

Part 3: Cognitive approach Part 6: Developmental psychology

to behaviour 6.1 Brain development 108
3.1 Models of memory 47 6.2 Cognitive development 109
3.2 Schema theory 49 6.3 Development of empathy and
3.3 Thinking and decision-making 50 theory of mind 110
3.4 Reconstructive memory 52 6.4 Gender identity and social roles 111
3.5 Biases in thinking and decision-making 53 6.5 Attachment 112
3.6 The influence of emotion on cognitive 6.6 Role of peers and play 113
processes 54
6.7 Childhood trauma and resilience 114
3.7 Cognitive processing in a technological
(digital/modern) world (HL only) 55 6.8 Effects of poverty/socio-economic
status on development 115
Sample questions 57
Sample questions 116
iii
 CONTENTS

Part 7: Health psychology Part 9: Paper 3 (HL only)

7.1 Biopsychosocial model of health 9.1 Paper 3 structure and tips 157
and well-being 123
9.2 Sample paper 3 and responses 166
7.2 Dispositional factors and health
beliefs 125
Part 10: Internal assessment
7.3 Risk and protective factors 126
7.4 Explanations of health problems 127 10.1 Unpacking IA assessment criteria 175
7.5 Prevalence rates of health problems 128 10.2 The IA checklist 178
7.6 Health promotion and effectiveness 10.3 The IA study menu 181
of health promotion programmes 129 10.4 Sample IA report 183
Sample questions 130
Part 11: Practice exam papers 196
Part 8: Psychology of human
relationships Index 199
8.1 Formation of personal relationships 138
8.2 Role of communication in personal
relationships 140
8.3 Explanations for why relationships
change or end 141
8.4 Cooperation and competition 142
8.5 Prejudice and discrimination 144
8.6 Origins of conflict and conflict
resolution 145
8.7 Bystanderism 146
8.8 Prosocial behaviour 147
8.9 Promoting prosocial behaviour 148
Sample questions 149

Answers to the practice exam paper questions in this book can be found on your
free support website. Access the support website here:
www.oxfordsecondary.com/ib-prepared-support

iv
1.1
1 GENERAL GUIDANCE
T H E ST R UCT UR E O F EXAM PAPER S
The IB Psychology syllabus is the main reference document that you
need to have available while reading this book. It is provided in the
IB subject guide and your teacher can share it with you.
The examination in IB Psychology for HL (higher level) students will
consist of four parts: paper 1, paper 2, paper 3 and the internal assessment.
The differences between HL and SL (standard level) exams are
as follows.
✔ SL paper 1 follows a slightly different structure (there are no
HL extensions).
✔ SL students study only one option for paper 2, whereas
HL students study two options.
✔ SL students do not take paper 3.
✔ There is no difference between HL and SL in the internal
assessment.
Paper 1 tests your knowledge of the core content of the syllabus:
Biological approach to behaviour, Cognitive approach to behaviour
and Sociocultural approach to behaviour.

3 compulsory
Part A
SAQs
Paper 1
A choice of 1 out
Part B
of 3 ERQs

A choice of 1 out
Option 1
of 3 ERQs
Paper 2
A choice of 1 out
(HL) Option 2
of 3 ERQs

A stimulus
Paper 3 (HL only) material and
static questions

internal Replication of an
assessment experimental
study

Figure 1.1.1 Assessment components in IB Psychology

1
1 General Guidance

The paper follows this structure.

• Section A (1 hour): three compulsory short-answer questions
(SAQs), one from each approach to behaviour (Biological,
Cognitive, Sociocultural).
• Section B (1 hour): you choose one out of three extended response
questions (ERQs), one from each approach to behaviour (Biological,
Cognitive, Sociocultural). For HL students, one, two or all three of
these ERQs will come from the HL extensions (The role of animal
research in understanding human behaviour, Cognitive processing
in the digital world, The influence of globalization on individual
behaviour).
Paper 2 tests your knowledge of the options. The IB Psychology
syllabus offers four options for study: Abnormal psychology,
Psychology of human relationships, Developmental psychology and
Health psychology. HL students study two of these options and SL
students study only one. Hence the duration of the paper is 1 hour for
SL students and 2 hours for HL students.
For each option, paper 2 will give three ERQs, and you choose one out
of the three to answer.
It is useful to know that each option is broken down into three broad
topics. (For example, Abnormal psychology is broken down into
Factors influencing diagnosis, Etiology of abnormal psychology and
Treatment of disorders.) One essay title will come from each of these
three broad topics.
Paper 3 tests your skills related to approaches to research and ethics.
It will have stimulus material that describes a research study in
approximately 500 words. The study can be quantitative, qualitative or
a combination of both. You will be asked a set of questions that tap into
your ability to apply knowledge of research methodology and ethics
to the stimulus material. The duration of this paper is 1 hour. The
questions are known in advance. Only HL students take paper 3.
The internal assessment in Psychology is the same for HL and SL
students. As the name suggests, this component is assessed internally,
which means that you get marked by your teacher. (A random sample
of student work in your school gets selected and sent to the IB for
moderation; if the moderation results in a change of marks for the
sample, marks for the rest of the students are adjusted accordingly.)
Internal assessment in Psychology requires you to carry out a
replication of a published experimental research study and report on
the results. It is the final report that is evaluated.
The total mark that you get in the subject is a weighted sum of all the
marks you get for individual components. The weights differ for HL
and SL students; they are summarized in Table 1.1.1.

Assessment component Weighting HL Weighting SL

External assessment (5 hours) 80% 75%
Paper 1 (2 hours) 40% 50%
Paper 2 (2 hours) 20% 25%
Paper 3 (1 hour) 20%
Internal assessment: experimental study 20% 25%
Table 1.1.1 Weighting of assessment components

2
1.2 H O W E XA M Q UEST IO NS WIL L
B E F O R M U L AT ED
In preparation for your exams it is important to know what to expect.
The syllabus is built in a way that encourages holistic understanding of
topics rather than rote memorization. For this reason, you are not given
any clear list of pre-defined questions for the exam, and the exact way
the exam questions will be formulated is, to an extent, unpredictable.
Based on the question you get, it is your job (and your skill) to choose
relevant material and present arguments in a way that is focused
entirely on the requirements of the question.
This is not to say, however, that there are no rules in formulating exam
questions. Although a certain amount of unpredictability does exist,
some things you can know in advance. This section is a summary of
such things.

Paper 1: SaQs and erQs

You get short-answer questions (SAQs) in section A of paper 1. As
the name suggests, these questions require a more concise answer.
Since you get three compulsory SAQs, you will have approximately
20 minutes to answer each of them.
SAQs are marked out of 9 marks each and assessed using a rubric.
The extended response question (ERQ) in section B of paper 1 is worth
22 marks and marked against a set of five criteria. You have 1 hour to
write an ERQ response. SAQ command ERQ command
For the assessment rubrics and their analysis, see pages 8–14. terms terms
Describe Discuss
To know what to expect from exam questions, you need to know that
Outline Evaluate
SAQs and ERQs have different sets of command terms associated with
them. These command terms are summarized in Table 1.2.1. Explain To what extent
Contrast
If you look at the syllabus, you will see that each unit is represented
as a table (see the Appendix). For an example, Table 1.2.2 gives the Table 1.2.1 Command terms used
syllabus for the unit Biological approach to behaviour. in the SAQs and ERQs

Topic Content
Techniques used to study the brain in relation to behaviour
The relationship between the brain Localization of function
and behaviour Neuroplasticity
Neurotransmitters and their effects on behaviour
Hormones and pheromones and their effects Hormones and their effects on behaviour
on behaviour Pheromones and their effects on behaviour
Genes and their effects on behaviour
The relationship between genetics
Genetic similarity
and behaviour
Evolutionary explanation for behaviour
For all three topics in this unit, and with reference to research studies, HL students
HL extension: The role of animal research in should study:
understanding human behaviour • the value of animal models in research to provide insight into human behaviour
• ethical considerations in animal research.
Table 1.2.2 The syllabus table for Biological approach to behaviour*
(* This is a simplified table; the actual syllabus table in the IB Psychology Subject Guide contains additional information.)

3
1 General Guidance

There are two columns in Table 1.2.2: “Topic” and “Content”.

Throughout the book we will sometimes refer to these as “column 1”
and “column 2”. The bottom row of the table is the HL extension.
Each HL extension has two aspects, shown as bullet points in the
table. There are also two overarching topics in paper 1: Research
methods and Ethics. If you look at the diagram of
the course (Figure 1.2.1), you will see that these
Research two topics form the background for all other
content in paper 1.
Now that you know these starting points, here is
what you should know about exam questions in
Biological paper 1.
• Both SAQs and ERQs will be formulated on the
basis of the “Content” column (column 2).
• Within that column, SAQ questions can
Options
be based on the headings themselves (for
example, “Neuroplasticity”) and occasionally
Cognitive Sociocultural
some additional terms (these are given in
Table 1.2.3). Here is an example of an exam
question using a heading from the Content
column: “Describe one research study related
to hormones and behaviour [9 marks].” Here is
Ethics an example of an exam question using one of
the additional terms from Table 1.2.3: “Outline
how neural networks are formed, with
Figure 1.2.1 Diagram of the IB Psychology course
reference to one study [9 marks].”
• ERQs can only use the headings. Additional terms from Table 1.2.3
will not be used in ERQs.
• Exam questions targeting one of the overarching topics (Research
methods and Ethics) will be formulated on the basis of the “Topic”

Approach to Content Additional terms that may be used in

understanding behaviour short-answer questions (SAQs)
Biological Neuroplasticity Neural networks
Neural pruning
Neuron
Neurotransmitters and their effect on behaviour Synapse
Excitatory/inhibitory neurotransmitters
Agonist
Antagonist
Genetic similarity Twin and kinship studies
Cognitive Models of memory Multi-store memory model
Working memory model
Schema theory Cognitive schema
Thinking and decision-making Rational thinking (controlled)
Intuitive thinking (automatic)
Sociocultural Social identity theory Social groups
Culture and its influence on behaviour and cognition Cultural groups
Enculturation Norms
Acculturation Assimilation / assimilate
Table 1.2.3 Additional terms that can be used in formulating SAQs in paper 1

4
 column (column 1). This means that, for example, you can be
asked to “Discuss approaches to research used in investigating
genetics and behaviour”, but you cannot be asked something as
specific as “Discuss approaches to research used in investigating
neuroplasticity”.
• For the HL extension, each of the two aspects (the two bullet
points) can be combined with each of the three topics from
column 1. This gives you six possible combinations, but of course
there is a lot of overlap between them in terms of material you can
use in your response.
With this knowledge you can now predict, to a certain extent, the
questions you will get in paper 1. Below are some examples of exam
questions that are plausible (we are using Biological approach to
behaviour as an example).
Short-answer questions (SAQs)
• Explain one technique used to study the brain in relation
to behaviour.
• Describe the effects of one hormone on behaviour.
• Outline one evolutionary explanation for behaviour.
Extended response questions (ERQs)
• Discuss psychological research into localization of function
in the brain.
• Evaluate one or more evolutionary explanations for behaviour.
• To what extent can genetic similarities be used to explore
heritability of human behaviour?
HL extension ERQs
• Discuss the value of animal models in investigating human
genetics and behaviour.
• To what extent can animal research provide insight into
human behaviour?
• Discuss ethical considerations involved in using animals to
investigate the relationship between brain and behaviour.
Overarching topics (Research methods and Ethics)
• Contrast two approaches to research used to investigate genetics
and behaviour.
• Evaluate the use of one or more research methods in the study of
the brain and behaviour.
• Discuss ethical considerations in investigating the influence of
hormones and/or pheromones on behaviour.
Here is a summary.
• SAQs can be formulated using content headings (column 2), topic
headings (column 1) and overarching topics (Research methods
and Ethics), as well as the additional terms (see Table 1.2.3).
• ERQs can be formulated using content headings (column 2), topic
headings (column 1) and overarching topics (Research methods
and Ethics). Additional terms cannot be used.

5
1 General Guidance

• Two overarching topics will be used: Research methods and Ethics.

Questions linked to these overarching topics will be formulated
using the topic headings (column 1).
• HL extensions can only be formulated as ERQs.

Additional information on the formulation of questions

in paper 1
Whenever the syllabus states “study one something” (for example,
“Study one example of neuroplasticity”), the formulation of ERQs
will use “one or more” (for example, “Discuss one or more examples
of neuroplasticity”). In other words, the syllabus requires you to
study a minimum of one “something”, but you can choose to study
more, and the exam question will allow you to demonstrate
this knowledge.

Paper 2: Only erQs

Paper 2 questions are ERQs assessed against the same rubric as
questions in paper 1 section B (see pages 8–14).
Paper 2 questions broadly follow the same rules as paper 1 questions,
except for the following.
• Only ERQs will be asked.
• The three approaches to behaviour (Biological, Cognitive and
Sociocultural) serve as the overarching topics in paper 2. This is
in addition to the other two overarching topics: Research methods
and Ethics.
Therefore, the rules for formulating paper 2 questions are as follows.
• Questions will be formulated using one of the four command terms
associated with ERQs: “discuss”, “evaluate”, “contrast” and
“to what extent”.
• Questions will be formulated on the basis of the content column
(column 2).
• Exam questions targeting the overarching topics (Biological,
Cognitive and Sociocultural approaches to behaviour, Research
methods and Ethics) will be formulated on the basis of the Topic
column (column 1). For example, you may be asked to “Discuss
biological and cognitive factors in the etiology of abnormal
psychology”, but you cannot be asked something as specific as
“Discuss sociocultural factors involved in investigating validity
and reliability of diagnosis”.

Additional information on the formulation of questions

in paper 2
Any material connected by the word “and” in the syllabus (for
example, “validity and reliability of diagnosis”) may be connected by
“and/or” in examination questions (for example, “Discuss the validity
and/or reliability of diagnosis”). This means that you can choose to
discuss both, but you do not have to.

6
There are three exceptions to this:
• Childhood trauma and resilience (Developmental psychology)
• Gender identity and social roles (Developmental psychology)
• Dispositional factors and health beliefs (Health psychology).
For these exceptions, exam questions may be formulated by separating
the pairing. For example, a question could be set separately on
childhood trauma, or separately on resilience, or on childhood trauma
and resilience. This means for these content headings, it is best to be
ready to treat them as two separate aspects.

Paper 3: Set questions

Paper 3 questions are selected from a fixed list of questions that you
know beforehand. This is how the selection is carried out.

Question 1
Question 1 has three compulsory parts.
a. Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics
of the method [3 marks].
b. Describe the sampling method used in the study [3 marks].
c. Suggest one alternative or one additional research method that
could be used to investigate the aim of the original study, giving
one reason for your choice [3 marks].

Question 2
The second question will be one of the following.
• Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study
and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied
[6 marks].
• Describe the ethical considerations in reporting the results and
explain additional ethical considerations that could be taken into
account when applying the findings of the study [6 marks].

Question 3
The third question will be one of the following. Marks Descriptor
7–9 The question is understood
• Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of
and answered in a focused
the study [9 marks]. and effective manner with
• Discuss how a researcher could ensure that the results of the study an accurate argument that
addresses the requirements
are credible [9 marks]. of the question.
• Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias [9 marks]. The response contains accurate
references to approaches to
In other words, the first question (with three parts) will always be research with regard to the
the same. You will then have to answer two more questions out of a question, describing their
possible five. Note that you will have 1 hour to answer them all. strengths and limitations.
Questions 1 and 2 will be assessed using an analytical markscheme The response makes effective
that will be developed separately for every exam based on the specific use of the stimulus material.
stimulus material. Question 3 will be assessed using a rubric. Descriptors Table 1.2.4 Paper 3 question 3
for the highest markband in this rubric are given in Table 1.2.4. rubric: highest markband

7
1 General Guidance

1.3 D ECIP H ER ING AS S ES S M ENT CR IT ER IA

Marks Level descriptor Short-answer question marking rubric (total 9 marks)
0 The answer does not reach Paper 1 section A consists of three short-answer questions (SAQs).
a standard described by
the descriptors below. All three questions are compulsory. Each question is marked out of
9 marks using the rubric in Table 1.3.1, for a total of 27 marks.
1–3 The response is of limited
relevance to or only As shown by the assessment criteria, in a short-answer question you
rephrases the question. are not expected to evaluate research studies or explicitly demonstrate
Knowledge and critical thinking. However, the following aspects of knowledge and
understanding is mostly understanding are important:
inaccurate or not relevant
to the question. • relevance and focus (these aspects are related; your answer needs
The research supporting to be relevant for the 4–6 markband and fully focused for the
the response is mostly not highest markband)
relevant to the question
and if relevant only listed. • accuracy of knowledge (knowledge needs to be accurate for the
4–6 The response is relevant to 4–6 markband and accurate and detailed for the highest markband)
the question, but does not • meeting the requirements of the command term (three command
meet the command term
terms are possible in SAQs: “describe”, “explain” and “outline”)
requirements.
Knowledge and • explicitly linking to the question.
understanding is accurate
Note that “knowledge and understanding” and “use of research” are
but limited.
separate aspects in each markband, which implies that describing
The response is supported relevant research is not enough to demonstrate your knowledge fully.
by appropriate research
which is described. You need to spend some time answering the question on a conceptual
level, and only then use a research study to illustrate your conceptual
7–9 The response is fully
focused on the question understanding. To answer the question on a conceptual level means to
and meets the command “address the main topics/problems identified in the question”.
term requirements.
For example, suppose the question asks you to “Explain how one
Knowledge and hormone may affect one human behaviour”. Suppose what you have
understanding is accurate
and addresses the main done is:
topics/problems identified • defined hormones
in the question.
The response is supported • named one example of a hormone – oxytocin
by appropriate research • stated that hormones can affect human behaviour
which is described and
explicitly linked to the • described a research study that investigated the effect of oxytocin
question. on behaviour – for example, Kosfeld et al (2005)
Table 1.3.1 SAQ marking rubric • repeated that, based on the results of the study, hormones can affect
human behaviour.
Most likely, provided there are no inaccuracies, this response will be
marked in the middle markband (4–6). Here are the reasons why it will
not achieve a higher markband.
• The response does not fully meet the requirements of the command
term “explain”. It is only stated that hormones can affect behaviour,
but not explained how. Although the research study serves as an
example, it does not contribute to the explanation on a conceptual
level.
• Similarly, knowledge and understanding are limited because the
topics/problems implicit in the question are not explained.
• Research is described but not explicitly linked to the question.
Although it is restated at the end that hormones affect human
behaviour, this statement in itself may not be enough.

8
So what should you do in order to move from the middle markband to
the highest markband?
• Instead of going straight into the details of the supporting research
study, spend some time answering the question on a conceptual
level. For example, you might want to explain how hormones
function in the human body (unlike neurotransmitters, they enter the
bloodstream) and how they are related to behaviour (they change
the likelihood of certain behaviours by altering the physiological
states linked to those behaviours). You might also make a reference
to the assumption of the biological approach to behaviour that
physiological structures and functions determine behaviour.
• Explain the problem implied in the question. For example, you might
say that the link between hormones (biological mechanisms designed
to regulate long-lasting behaviours through chemicals entering the
bloodstream and targeting specialized cell receptors) and behaviour
(which seems to be under our conscious control) seems distant.
However, although hormones do not determine behaviour directly,
they do increase the probability of a certain behaviour occurring.
• Link the research study explicitly to the conceptual points you
made before.

extended response question marking rubric

(total 22 marks) Criterion A: Focus on the
question (2 marks)
Extended response questions (ERQs) are marked using five assessment
criteria. We unpack these criteria one by one below. To understand the
requirements of the question,
Criterion A is shown on the right, but what does it mean to explain students must identify the
the problem/issue? How is this different from simply identifying the problem or issue being raised
problem being raised by the question? Let us try to illustrate with an by the question. Students may
example. Suppose the question is “Discuss the theory of localization of simply identify the problem
function”. by restating the question or
breaking down the question.
Localization of function is the idea that psychological functions Students who go beyond this
are associated with specialized brain areas. There were numerous by explaining the problem are
showing that they understand
research studies that supported this idea based on the observation
the issues or problems.
that damage to a brain area results in the loss of a function. The
Mark Level descriptor
scientific challenge was to find correspondence between specific 0 Does not reach the
brain areas and all known psychological functions. standards described by
the descriptors below
What we said in the previous paragraph counts as restating the
1 Identifies the problem/
question. We have identified the problem (to find correspondence issue raised in the
between brain areas and psychological functions), but we have not question
explained it. Hence, we have probably earned 1 mark for criterion A, 2 Explains the problem/
but not both marks. issue raised in the
question
Here are some of the things we could add to dig deeper and explain
the problem.

• It may not be easy to find such correspondence because not all

functions are localized in a specific brain area. Some brain
areas are responsible for more than one function, some functions
are localized in more than one area of the brain, and some

9
1 General Guidance

functions are widely distributed. This is reflected in how ideas

about localization developed historically, with the theory of strict
localization gradually being replaced by more flexible theories.
• Success in establishing localization of function depends on
the research methods that are being used. Various methods have
been used for this purpose including post-mortem autopsy in
case studies, cortical stimulation, induced cortical damage (in
animal studies) and research with brain imaging technology.
Each of these methods has certain limitations that do not allow
us to make certain inferences about localization of function.
As we see from this example, unlike simple identification of a problem,
the explanation goes one or several steps further and uncovers
essential aspects or dimensions of the problem.
Note that although the introduction in your essay will tell the reader a
lot about how focused the essay is going to be, criterion A (focus on the
Criterion B: Knowledge and question) is used to assess the whole essay, not only the introductory part.
understanding (6 marks)
Mark Level descriptor
This criterion rewards
0 Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
students for demonstrating
1–2 The response demonstrates limited relevant knowledge and understanding.
their knowledge and
understanding of specific Psychological terminology is used but with errors that hamper understanding.
areas of psychology. It 3–4 The response demonstrates relevant knowledge and understanding but lacks
is important to credit detail.
relevant knowledge and Psychological terminology is used but with errors that do not hamper
understanding that is targeted understanding.
at addressing the question 5–6 The response demonstrates relevant, detailed knowledge and understanding.
and explained in sufficient Psychological terminology is used appropriately.
detail.
Criterion B is straightforward and does not require much deciphering.
However, a few details are worth noting.
• The terms “knowledge” and “understanding” are never used
independently, which emphasizes the fact that what you should
demonstrate in a response is not merely knowledge of facts or
details, but understanding of how and why these details are
important, and in what context.
• It is important for knowledge to be relevant to the question.
Relevance is the most basic concern – you need to be sure that what
you use in your response is absolutely relevant to the question,
otherwise you risk scoring no marks for the essay. For example, a
common mistake is to use neurotransmitter research (such as into
serotonin) in response to a question about hormones. No matter
how good the response is, chances are it will not score anything.
• The use of psychological terminology is another facet of this criterion.
Psychological concepts should be correctly defined and used
precisely and in appropriate contexts. You should demonstrate that
you understand what relevant concepts in psychology mean and how
they are applied. For example, it would be a mistake to use the term
“experiment” to identify a research study that is not experimental in
nature. Similarly, it is not correct to refer to experimental research as a
“case study” (this is a common mistake among students).

10
Criterion C, shown on the right, emphasizes the importance of using
research studies to support arguments (conceptual understandings), Criterion C: Use of research
not just for their own sake. to support answer
(6 marks)
Here are some important points to note.
Psychology is evidence-based
• If you use research studies that are not relevant to the question, so it is expected that students
you risk scoring no marks on this criterion. will use their knowledge
• If you use research studies to support one and the same argument, of research to support their
you score low marks. argument. There is no
prescription as to which or
• High marks are scored if research is used to support the
how many pieces of research
development of the argument.
are appropriate for their
• What matters is not the number of studies used, but the quality response. As such it becomes
of their use. For example, the link between the study and the important that the research
conceptual understanding that it supports must be clearly and selected is relevant and useful
explicitly demonstrated. in supporting the response.
One piece of research that
What does it mean to use research to support the development of the
makes the points relevant
argument? It means answering the question on a conceptual level first
to the answer is better than
and then supporting the points you have made with research studies,
several pieces that repeat the
as opposed to answering the question descriptively by just talking
same point over and over.
about research that seems to be relevant.
A good mental exercise to see if your research is really being used Mark Level descriptor
to support your arguments is this: look at your essay and mentally 0 Does not reach the standard
remove all mentions of research studies and their procedural details described by the descriptors
below.
(you can only leave the conclusions), then look at what is left. If the
1–2 Limited relevant
leftover content is in itself a well-developed argumentative answer to
psychological research is
the question, then your essay is strong on the conceptual level and the used in the response.
research studies are probably used to support the arguments. For more Research selected serves to
tips on how to accomplish this, see pages 14–19. repeat points already made.
According to Criterion D, shown on the next page, you are expected to 3–4 Relevant psychological
demonstrate critical thinking about the knowledge and understanding research is used in support
of the response and is partly
used in your responses and the research used to support that knowledge explained.
and understanding. There are a number of areas where you may
Research selected partially
demonstrate critical thinking. Examples include: develops the argument.
• research design and methodologies 5–6 Relevant psychological
research is used in support
• triangulation of the response and is
• assumptions and biases thoroughly explained.
Research selected is
• contradictory evidence or alternative theories or explanations effectively used to develop
the argument.
• areas of uncertainty
• strengths and limitations
• possible applications of a model or explanation
• cross-cultural, gender and age differences present in findings.
The IB Psychology Subject Guide explicitly states that these areas are
not hierarchical, and neither is it necessary to give them all equal or
any coverage in a response. For example, a good response may include
a very limited critique of research design and methodologies, but also
include a well-developed discussion of areas of uncertainty implied
in the question. A holistic judgment will be made by the examiner
regarding the quality of critical thinking in the essay. It must also be
noted that critical thinking points will be different depending on the
question and the command term, so examiners will assess evidence

11
1 General Guidance

of critical thinking within the context of the problem that is being

Criterion D: Critical thinking addressed in the question.
(6 marks)
The opposite to well-developed critical thinking is a descriptive
This criterion credits students response. A typical descriptive response would focus on a list of
who demonstrate an inquiring research studies, emphasizing procedural details and findings.
and reflective attitude to their What can you add to a typical descriptive response to get an essay
understanding of psychology. that demonstrates good critical thinking skills? Let us look at it one
There are a number of step after another, from more basic critical thinking points to more
areas where students sophisticated ones.
may demonstrate critical
thinking on the knowledge You can add evaluation of the research studies. This would typically
and understanding used include a critique of research designs/methodologies. However, you
in their responses and the should remember that this critique needs to be well developed. There
research used to support is always a large variety of aspects you can look at when evaluating
that knowledge and a study, falling under four overarching themes: credibility, bias,
understanding. sampling and generalizability. For example, in an experimental study
you could consider:
Mark Level descriptor
• internal validity (how the variables have been controlled, and how the
0 Does not reach the
standard described by the common threats to internal validity have or have not been avoided)
descriptors below. • population validity (the ability to generalize results from a sample
1–2 There is limited critical to the target population, and issues such as using samples coming
thinking and the response from one culture or participants of only one gender)
is mainly descriptive.
Evaluation or discussion, if • ecological validity (the extent to which it is possible to generalize
present, is superficial. from experimental settings to real-life situations, from the
3–4 The response contains artificial context of the experiment to the natural context of
critical thinking, but lacks participants’ lives)
development.
• construct validity (how the variables are operationalized and to
Evaluation or discussion what extent is the “leap” from operationalizations to theoretical
of most relevant areas
is attempted but is not constructs justified in the study)
developed. • issues of gender, culture and ethics.
5–6 The response consistently
demonstrates well- You can link these individual research studies explicitly to the
developed critical thinking. theories/models/concepts you are investigating in your response
Evaluation or discussion (for example, localization, neuroplasticity, models of decision-making).
of relevant areas is Consider answering questions such as the following.
consistently well
• Is the jump from the empirical findings of the research study to the
developed.
theoretical conclusions of the model justified?
• Does the study fully and conclusively support the theory/model/
concept? If not, which parts or aspects of the theory/model/
concept are supported by the study and which ones are not?
• Are there other research studies (follow-up studies) that provide a
more complete support to the theory/model/concept?
You can consider alternative models or explanations, if the question allows
you to do so. Examine the relative merits of alternative explanations.
If you use contradictory evidence, do not just state that such contradictory
evidence exists; try to demonstrate why it exists (for example,
contradictory research studies are based on different assumptions,
use different methods or are conducted with different samples).
You can look at the theory/model/concept in the question more generally,
through the lens of research methodology. What methods are available to
investigate the theoretical concept? Are the available methods imposing
any limitations on the nature of theoretical inferences? To what extent is
triangulation possible in this area of research?
12
Finally, you can summarize this discussion by identifying the
conclusions that seem to be most reliable, areas that are likely to have
biased results, and existing areas of uncertainty where conclusions
cannot be made with confidence.
There are some “buzz words” that you are likely to use in a response
that includes a variety of critical thinking points. Make sure you
understand what these words mean in the context of psychological
research, and try to use them whenever appropriate: evidence,
findings, conclusion, inference, theory/model/concept, alternative
explanation, assumption, implication, practical application, reliability,
triangulation, effectiveness, bias, credibility, generalizability, sample,
evaluation, significance, uncertainly, strengths, limitations.

Criterion E: Clarity and organization (2 marks)

This criterion credits students for presenting their response in a
clear and organized manner.
A good response would require no re-reading to understand the
points made or the train of thought underpinning the argument.

Mark Level descriptor

0 Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1 The answer demonstrates some organization and clarity, but this is not
sustained throughout the response.
2 The answer demonstrates organization and clarity throughout the
response.

Although Criterion E comes last and is only worth 2 marks, its

significance should not be underestimated. If your answer is not clear
enough, the reader (the examiner) may miss out on certain important steps
in your train of thought or misunderstand certain points you are making.
This, in the long run, may affect your marks for the other criteria.
Clarity and organization are connected. A well-organized response is
one where it is clearly visible where one argument ends and another
begins. It will have a clear introduction, key arguments will start with a
new paragraph, and the conclusion will be well developed. In a well-
organized response, new arguments do not appear in the conclusion
of the essay because the conclusion is only a summary of all the
arguments that have already been made.
Clarity is closely linked to how effectively you use terminology.
It needs to be used precisely and in appropriate contexts. If you are
describing a research study, it needs to be clear what argument you
are supporting. Make it a rule to link back to the question after every
major part of the essay, explaining to the reader how it connects to the
question at hand.
For example, for individual research studies it is important to write
both findings and conclusions. Findings are just empirical results of a
particular study. Conclusions are theoretical generalizations based on
those results. It is the conclusion that links the research study back to
the question, and that is why it is important to spell out the conclusion
clearly and precisely.

13
1 General Guidance

1.4 ST RU CT URING AN ES S AY
In this section we will introduce two approaches that students typically
use in structuring their ERQ responses. One of these (the study-based
approach) may be considered a more basic approach and the other one
(argument-based) may be considered more elaborate, with a heavier
emphasis on critical thinking.
These two approaches certainly do not exhaust all the possibilities
you have in terms of structuring your essay. They are just given here
as typical examples. Experience shows that spontaneously (without
specific instruction) students often use the study-based approach,
as it is intuitively appealing. However, the argument-based approach
gives you more scope to demonstrate critical thinking and to use
research more effectively. This is not to say that the argument-based
approach is preferable in all situations, but knowing the difference
between the two may help you structure your responses more
effectively.
Since the study-based approach is already intuitively used by most
students, the focus in this chapter will be on the argument-based
approach, and on demonstrating its advantages over the study-
based approach. For this reason, the question that we use in the
example given below (“To what extent is one cognitive process
reliable?”) invites the use of the argument-based approach rather
that the study-based approach. A study-based response to this
question will be demonstrated for the sake of contrast, to show how
students often choose an inefficient way to address the question.
The structure of a typical study-based essay response is as follows.

Structure of a typical study-based response

Introduction (where the question is restated and explained)
Research study 1 (for example, “To investigate this question,
Author and Author (1999) conducted a research study where … ”)
Evaluation of the research study
Research study 2 (for example, “Another study to investigate the
question was conducted by … In this study … ”)
Evaluation of the research study
Possible further research studies, leading to the …
Conclusion

Note that the number of research studies is not fixed. Typically, in

an ERQ response most students using the study-based approach
write about two to four research studies (usually two, but sometimes
more).
Using the topic “Reliability of cognitive processes” as an example
(Cognitive approach to behaviour), here is an outline of what a typical
response following the study-based approach would look like.

14
Question: To what extent is one cognitive process reliable?

[Introduction] Memory is a cognitive process … Memory has been found to be

unreliable in a variety of situations.
situations This has been demonstrated in a number
of research studies, for example those based on eyewitness testimony.
testimony In this
response I will …
[First research study] One study that investigated unreliability of memory in
an eyewitness testimony situation is Loftus and Palmer (1974). (1974) They showed
participants video recordings of car accidents and asked them to estimate the
speed of the cars. They varied one verb in the leading question: “About how fast
were the cars going when they hit each other?” … [details of the study follow].
[Evaluation] The strength of this study is its internal validity, but the
limitations are … [evaluation of the study follows].
[Second research study] Another study that investigated a similar phenomenon
is Loftus and Zanni (1975).
(1975) They varied the article used in the leading
question: “Did you see a … ” versus “Did you see the … ”. Similarly, they found
that the article “the” changes the probability that participants will recall seeing
the object in question, although it was not actually there … [details follow].
[Evaluation] The strengths of this experiment are … and the limitations are …
[evaluation of the study follows].
[Conclusion] In conclusion
conclusion, it can be said that in certain situations memory
is unreliable because it can be changed by such small external influences as
the article or the verb used in the leading question.

Several things should be noted about the study-based approach.

• Essentially both research studies used here support one and
the same argument: that memory is unreliable because it can
be changed by small variations in leading questions. Loftus
and Palmer (1974) is a classical study that demonstrates the
phenomenon of leading questions influencing the memory of an
event, Loftus and Zanni (1975) replicate the finding with even
smaller variations in the leading question.
• As you know, the study of Loftus and Palmer (1974) had two parts
to it. In the first experiment, five groups of participants were asked
leading questions with verbs of varying emotional intensity (“hit”,
“smashed into” and so on) and then asked to estimate the speed;
in the second experiment there were three groups of participants
and they were asked factual questions (for example, “Did you
see broken glass in the video?”). When you use the study-based
approach, these two parts of the experiment will probably be
presented as one study.
• Evaluation points in this response are focused on individual
research studies, but not on the phenomenon of memory
reliability in general. For example, the student can talk about
issues of generalizability in Loftus and Palmer (1974).

15
1 General Guidance

In their first experiment they used 45 students split into five equal
groups, which raised at least two questions: (a) can you generalize
results from undergraduate students to a wider population, and
(b) is nine participants per group a large enough sample? However,
although these points do bring into question the ability of Loftus
and Palmer’s research study to test the theory of reconstructive
memory, they do not say anything about the credibility of the
theory itself.
Let us compare this now with a possible structure of an argument-
based response.

Structure of a typical argument-based response

Introduction (the question is explained with a focus on the
problem/issue inherent in it)
Argument 1, explaining one of the aspects of the problem/issue
Supporting study 1: findings of the study translate into a
conclusion that supports argument 1
Evaluation of the study in the context of this conclusion,
which raises an additional issue, thus leading to:
argument 2, explaining this additional issue
supporting study 2, to clarify this issue
Evaluation of the study in the context of argument 2, which
potentially identifies the next problem/issue, leading to further
arguments and supporting studies
Conclusion, summarizing the main flow of argumentation and
linking back to the question

Again, note that the number of research studies is not fixed. In fact, as
you will see a little later, since research studies are used in a focused
way to support the arguments, it is possible to drop some irrelevant
details of individual research studies. As a result, you will not need
the same amount of detail and thus will be able to use more research
studies than one would normally expect in a study-based response.
Note that although using the argument-based approach makes it
possible to use more research studies, you don’t have to. Instead,
you can choose to focus more on discussing the theoretical points
and the arguments, or use one and the same study to bring up
everal arguments.
Using the same example (reliability of memory), let us look at an
outline of a possible argument-based response to the same question.
Question: To what extent is one cognitive process reliable?

[Introduction] Reliability of memory means its ability to store information

securely and retrieve it exactly as it was encoded. Memory can be considered
reliable only if we assume that it cannot be changed once it is encoded. But
what if this assumption is false?

16
[Argument] Reliability of memory was brought into question when it was
discovered that in a typical eyewitness situation, memory of an event may
change in response to small variations in the leading question.
[Support] For example, Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a study where
they showed that the emotional intensity of the verb in the leading question
changes speed estimates provided by participants. [Relevant details of the
study follow here.] On the basis of that, researchers formulated the theory of
reconstructive memory. [Details of the theory.]
[Evaluation] However, there existed two possible interpretations of the findings
from Loftus and Palmer (1974).
• There is a genuine memory change: the leading question interferes
with the information about the event stored in long-term memory and
changes it.
• We are dealing with a response bias: memory itself does not change, but
when participants are unsure about the speed of the car the leading question
may bias their response in a certain direction.
[Argument] The second interpretation is not consistent with the theory
of reconstructive memory; therefore in order to accept the theory we must
demonstrate that a genuine memory change is taking place.
[Support] To rule out the second interpretation (which goes contrary to the
theory of reconstructive memory), Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted
another experiment where participants were asked the question “Did you see
any broken glass in the video?” (when in fact there was no broken glass). They
observed that participants who had a more intense verb in their leading question
(such as “smashed into”) were more likely to report seeing broken glass. This
suggested that genuine memory change did in fact occur, ruling out the second
interpretation and supporting the theory of reconstructive memory.
[Evaluation] However, the theory was further criticized on the basis of its
applicability to real-life situations. All the experiments mentioned so far were
carried out in artificial laboratory conditions.
[Argument] The theory of reconstructive memory gets plenty of support in
laboratory experiments, but not so much in real-life situations.
[Support] The influence of leading questions on eyewitness testimony in a
real-life situation was investigated by Yuille and Cutshall (1986).
(1986) [Details
of the study follow.] They found no effect of leading questions on recall of the
details of the robbery. This means one of two things.
• Either the theory of reconstructive memory is only applicable to artificial
experimental conditions.
• Or the study of Yuille and Cutshall tapped into a separate memory
phenomenon, perhaps flashbulb memory. Unlike the previous studies,

17
1 General Guidance

we may assume that participants in the study of Yuille and Cutshall

experienced a strong emotional arousal when they witnessed the event. It is
possible that this emotional arousal activated the mechanism of flashbulb
memory which obscured the action of reconstructive memory.
[Conclusion] Eyewitness testimony research has demonstrated that post-event
information can be integrated with the memory of the event and alter this
memory. The alternative competing explanation – response bias – seems to have
been eliminated. However, there are still questions regarding the applicability
of reconstructive memory to real-life situations. When emotional arousal is
present, it may be hard to separate the action of reconstructive memory from
that of flashbulb memory, which complicates research in this area.

There are several things to note about the argument-based approach to

structuring essays (and the example above).
• Different research studies in this response are used to support
different arguments. Two studies are never used to support the
same argument. This links directly to assessment criterion C
(Use of research to support answer), which states that “One
piece of research that makes the points relevant to the answer
is better than several pieces that repeat the same point over
and over”.
• The study of Loftus and Palmer (1974) consists of two parts. In one
of the parts participants were asked to provide speed estimates
and in the other part they were asked a factual question (“Did you
see broken glass?”). These were actually two separate experiments
with two different samples. When you use a study-based approach,
these two experiments will be presented as parts of a single study,
supporting the thesis that misleading post-event information can
alter the memory of an event. However, in the argument-based
approach these parts of the study can be clearly presented as two
separate experiments, as they support two distinctly different
arguments: results of the first experiment have two potential
explanations, and results of the second experiment are used to
rule out the explanation that is not consistent with the theory of
reconstructive memory.
• The arguments are arranged in a flow: first the theory of
reconstructive memory and a supporting study, then two possible
interpretations and a supporting study to examine one of them,
then the criticism of ecological validity (and a supporting study).
This is a bit like telling a story.
• With this story-like arrangement of the arguments it becomes
possible to incorporate a more diverse range of critical thinking
points in the essay. You may have noticed that in the study-based
approach, critical thinking points were mostly limited to evaluating
individual research studies. In the argument-based approach, many
of the arguments themselves serve as critical thinking points; for
example, suggesting two alternative explanations to the results of
Loftus and Palmer (1974).
18
Study-based Argument-based
The starting point is a research study The starting point is an argument, then a study is used to support it
Two or more studies are used to support one and the Different studies are used to support different arguments
same argument
Both parts of Loftus and Palmer (1974) are presented as aspects of The two parts of Loftus and Palmer (1974) may be used as two
the same study independent studies because they support different arguments
Studies are not arranged in any meaningful sequence Arguments are arranged in a flow (story-like arrangement)
Critical thinking points are mainly gained from the evaluation of Critical thinking points are embedded in the argumentation itself
individual studies
Evaluation points are mostly related to details of individual studies Evaluation points are mostly related to the theory/concept in the
exam question
Description of research studies tends to be detailed It is not necessary to describe all details of a research study (only
those relevant to the argument)
Table 1.4.1 Comparison of study-based and argument-based approaches

• Many evaluation points in the argument-based example are related

to the question itself (the concept of reconstructive memory) rather
than individual studies.
• In the argument-based example it is possible to skip irrelevant
details of a research study if they are not essential to explain the
argument. This saves space and allows you to focus more on
critical evaluations. (Alternatively, one can use a larger number of
research studies.)
The main differences between the study-based and the argument-
based approach to structuring essays (related to the example above)
are summarized in Table 1.4.1.
A good exercise to see if your response follows the argument-based
approach is this. Take the essay and remove all the details of all the
research studies, as well as evaluation of these individual research
studies. Have a look at what is left. If the leftover content is a well-
developed argumentative answer to the question, you are dealing with
an argument-based response. If the leftover content is an introduction,
a conclusion and one simple idea in between, this is a study-based
response.
Of course, a “pure” study-based and a “pure” argument-based
approach are only two extremes provided here for the sake of
comparison. Most actual essays will lie somewhere in between
these two extremes and combine features of both approaches.
You will notice, however, that in a majority of cases the argument-
based approach is preferable to the study-based approach as it is more
aligned with the assessment criteria. Needless to say, in the example
presented above the study-based essay would score much lower than
the argument-based essay.
There may be some questions for which the study-based approach will
work just fine, for example: “Discuss research studies investigating
if one cognitive process is reliable”. From the way the question is
formulated, you can see that listing research studies one by one might
do the job. However, such questions are rare and, to reiterate, you will
often find that essays score higher when they follow the logic of the
argument-based approach.

19
1 General Guidance

1.5 CO MM AN D T ERM S AND H O W TO

A PP RO ACH T H EM
Command terms that you can get in your exam questions, along with
the explanations provided in the IB Psychology Subject Guide, are
summarized in Table 1.5.1.
The differences between command terms may not always be obvious
due to considerable overlap in their meanings. However, it is important
to keep those nuances of meaning in mind and to stay focused on
the requirements of the command term at all times, as that directly
translates into marks.
To illustrate these differences, suppose you are writing an essay about
a popular comedy television show, such as Friends or The Big Bang
Theory. We will compare that to a typical exam question, such as a
question on localization of function in the brain.
Let us start with SAQ command terms.

describe
To describe means to give a detailed account. Detail is the key word
here. When you describe The Big Bang Theory, the expectation is that
you provide a narrative that gives your reader a clear picture of what
the show is like. To do so, it would probably make sense to say a few
words about the show in general and then describe the characters and
typical situations portrayed in it. You might even choose to describe
a sample episode. It becomes important to convey what the main
characters are like, what they do for a living, where they live and what
their typical days are like. If you choose a concrete episode to describe,
it is important to convey the sequence of events, the characters’
reactions and maybe even the key jokes in the episode.
Similarly, exam questions using the command term “describe” will
probably target one specific theory or research study. An example is
“Describe one research study related to localization of function in the
brain”. You will need to include all the key details of the study: its aim,
method, procedure, results and conclusion. Procedural information
such as the sample, the nature of experimental tasks or how the
variables were measured is also important.
Students often find it more challenging to describe a theory, such
as “Describe one model of thinking and/or decision-making”.

SAQ or ERQ Command term Explanation

SAQ Describe Give a detailed account.
SAQ Outline Give a brief account or summary.
SAQ Explain Give a detailed account including reasons or causes.
ERQ Contrast Give an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to
both (all) of them throughout.
ERQ Discuss Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by
appropriate evidence.
ERQ Evaluate Make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.
ERQ To what extent Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should
be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.
Table 1.5.1 Command terms
20
For such questions, it is important to describe the key components
of the model, how they interact with each other and the assumptions
on which the model is based. Importantly, a supporting research
study is still required in such questions, because assessment criteria
include a requirement to use research to support the answer, and a
theory or a theoretical model is not considered research. However,
unlike “describe one study” questions, details of the study are not
that important in this case. It is details of the theory that must be
emphasized. As for the study, the crucial part is linking its findings
back to the theory.

Outline
To outline means to give a brief account or summary. How is
“outlining” The Big Bang Theory different from describing it? When
you outline, you are not interested in details of specific characters or
specific episodes. Instead your aim is to provide a summary that gives
the reader a general idea about the show, much like the summaries
you read on websites that provide reviews of television shows. You
will probably mention things like the setting (when, where, who), the
category of the show (sitcom), the main overarching elements of the
storyline (such as the fact that a girl moved in to an apartment across
the hall from a couple of geeky physicists) and similar information.
If your question asks “Outline the theory of localization of function”,
you will use a similar strategy. You will put emphasis on localization
as a concept and mention the key issues surrounding this idea (for
example, some functions are more strongly localized than others, some
functions seem not to be localized at all, methods of research that we
use determine what we can say about localization of function). You are
also expected to give an example research study, but in an “outline”
question procedural details are not that important.

explain
To explain means to give a detailed account including reasons or
causes. Looking at Table 1.5.1, you have probably noticed that to
explain means to describe plus something extra. This does not mean
that “explain” is more difficult or requires a longer time to answer
than “describe”. In an “explain” question, you will focus a little less
on procedural details and other descriptive information. Instead the
main emphasis will be on answering the question on a conceptual
(theoretical) level and connecting the results of the study to that level.
If you were asked to explain one episode of The Big Bang Theory, you
would probably not need to give a full description of an episode, but
you would need to pick an example of a scene and explain how it links
to the main idea of the show, why people find it funny and why they
like to watch it. For example, in one of the episodes Sheldon Cooper
stayed up all night to rewrite the “roommate agreement” when his
roommate started dating a girl, and that links to the show’s portrayal
of Sheldon’s character as someone who likes things to be predictable.
People may find this kind of personality funny and amusing.
Similarly, if the question is “Explain the theory of localization of
function”, you need to start by clearly writing the thesis statements of
the theory itself (conceptual level), then give an example of a research
study supporting the theory or any of its parts (level of research),

21
1 General Guidance

then link the conclusions of the study back to the theory and explain
how exactly the study supports the theory (back to the conceptual level).
Now let us look at ERQ command terms.

discuss
To discuss means to offer a considered and balanced review that
includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. It is important to
understand the difference between “discuss” and “evaluate”. Although
any extended response essay will include some evaluation as part of
a demonstration of critical thinking skills, evaluation is not the main
focus of a “discuss” question.
Suppose you need to discuss The Big Bang Theory. This is like writing a
critical overview for the general audience. You should avoid one-sided
opinions and you should carefully consider existing perspectives,
potential arguments and counter-arguments. In a review like this you
are normally expected to consider a range of aspects of the television
show: screenplay, camerawork, acting, setting, originality, budget
and so on. The purpose is to convey an objective, unbiased review of
various aspects of the television show so that the reader can make a
more informed decision about it.
Similarly, you might get a question asking you to “Discuss the theory
of localization of function”. Think about the question on a conceptual
level first. Surely you will need to start with an explanation of the idea
of localization. Then you can start exploring several aspects of this
idea, including but not limited to the following.
• Limitations of the theory. Some functions are more easily localized
than others, some functions seem not to be localized anywhere,
localization is not static in the sense that parts of the brain may take
over functions of other areas as a result of neuroplasticity.
• Dependence on research methods. When post-mortem examination
of brain-damaged patients was the only available method,
conclusions in this field were limited; with the invention of brain
scanning technology we can now look at the structure and function
of a living brain, which has boosted research, but even brain
scanning technology has certain limitations (for example, spatial
and temporal resolution of a scanner).
• Ethical considerations linked with the idea of localization. For
example, the most reliable way to establish localization is through
brain damage, but we cannot intentionally do that to participants.
• Assumptions upon which the idea of localization is based. For
example, you might bring in some TOK and discuss the pros and
cons of reductionism.
• Implications of the idea of localization, such as practical
applications, long-term prediction of behaviour and so on.
All the arguments should be supported by relevant and appropriate
empirical research. The conclusion should be clear, balanced and
evidence-based.

evaluate
To evaluate means to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths
and limitations. The main difference between this command term and
22
“discuss” is the focus. You will still consider various aspects/factors/
arguments linked to the question, but the emphasis is on making
an appraisal. So your conclusion should be formulated in terms of
acceptable/unacceptable, reliable/unreliable, conclusive/inconclusive.
If you were to evaluate The Big Bang Theory, you would be expected to
produce a value judgment. Is it good or bad? Is it worth watching or not?
This judgment needs to be supported by evidence and critical thinking.
Similarly, if you are asked to “Evaluate research into localization of
function”, the focus is on the essential strengths and limitations of
research in this area, its credibility and generalizability, biases that
are difficult to avoid and so on. Just make sure to focus the response
on evaluation of research in this field in general, not standalone
research studies. For example, saying that Broca’s case study is limited
in generalizability because it was conducted with a patient with
unique brain damage is acceptable, but it does not directly answer the
question. Adding that case studies were typical for research during that
period of time due to the absence of brain imaging technology solves
the problem, because you are now evaluating research in general.

To what extent
The command term “to what extent” requires you to consider the
merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. You can usually
expect this command term in content units that include two opposing
viewpoints. For example, the content heading “Genetic similarity”
implies the nurture-nurture debate, so it is plausible to expect
questions such as “To what extent does genetic similarity explain
similarity in behaviour?”
In our television show example, a plausible question might be “To
what extent is The Big Bang Theory’s representation of young scientists
accurate?” Obviously, you will consider some aspects in which the
representation is accurate and some aspects where it is not. You might
compare the importance of these aspects to arrive at a conclusion. You
will probably mention a range of arguments related to what should be
considered an accurate representation of the life of young scientists.
Similarly, in the question related to the content heading “Genetic
similarity”, you might consider arguments to support the statement
that behaviour is genetically inherited (with supporting evidence)
as well as arguments in favour of the idea that it is the environment
that influences behaviour the most (again, with supporting evidence).
You might compare the quality of evidence from both sides of the
debate, outline essential limitations of such evidence and arrive at a
balanced conclusion. You can bring up the fact that genetic inheritance
and the environment interact with each other, making the assessment
of isolated effects difficult. Avoid answering such questions with a
superficial “to some extent”. There are other ways to go about it, for
example demonstrating that in some aspects of reality one side of the
argument applies better than the other side.
For The Big Bang Theory, for example, the conclusion might be that
the life of young scientists is represented accurately in terms of their
typical day in the university, but not too accurately in terms of their
typical weekend. For the “genetic similarity” question, you might
try to give a quantified answer using twin studies (or other genetic
similarity research).

23
1 General Guidance

contrast
To contrast means to give an account of the differences between two
(or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Typically, such questions will be used when there are two clearly
identifiable theories/models/perspectives implied in the content unit.
For example, psychology students are required to study two models
of memory: the multi-store memory model and the working memory
model. One might expect a question asking students to contrast the
two models. In our television show example, a typical question might
be “Contrast two television shows: The Big Bang Theory and Friends”.
It is important to note that the expectation for this command term is a
comparison throughout the response. What does this mean? Suppose
the student who is comparing two models of memory describes one
model first (and evaluates it), then describes and evaluates the second
model, and then in the concluding paragraphs contrasts the two
models. This does not count as contrasting throughout the response;
strictly speaking, the question is only being answered in the concluding
paragraphs. A more effective approach would be to define some criteria
for comparison at the start, then go from one criterion to the next,
making references to both the models in the process. The focus should be
on the differences between the two models (as opposed to similarities).
Table 1.5.2 summarizes the key features of an essay response that are
expected for each of the command terms. This is not an exhaustive
list. The table merely suggests some prominent differences between
command terms as well as areas of overlap.

Feature Describe Outline Explain Contrast Discuss Evaluate To what extent

Using empirical research to support the answer
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Describing research studies, focusing on

✓
procedural details
Explaining how findings of a research study link
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
to theoretical conclusions
Focusing on strengths and limitations of a
✓ ✓ ✓
theory/study/idea
Focusing on contrasting explanations or
✓ ✓
approaches to the same idea
Summarizing the important aspects of a
✓ ✓
problem or an idea
Providing a summary that gives a general idea ✓
Considering existing perspectives ✓ ✓ ✓
Considering arguments and counter-arguments ✓ ✓ ✓
Arriving at a balanced conclusion ✓ ✓
Making a critical appraisal ✓ ✓
Making a judgment ✓
Focusing on essential limitations of research in
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
a certain area
Comparing the quality of evidence from two
✓
sides of a debate
Outlining the essential limitations of
✓ ✓ ✓
empirical evidence
Summarizing differences between theories,
✓
ideas or concepts
Table 1.5.2 Command terms: differences and overlaps
24
1.6 A N ALYS IS O F CO M M O N M ISTAK ES
An analysis of common mistakes specific to particular content headings will be given in parts 2–8 of this book.
Here let us only briefly mention some things to look out for irrespective of the specific exam question.

cOMMOn errOrS
Using animal studies when the exam done in support of an argument about human
question refers to “human behaviour” behaviour.
For example, if the question is “Explain how one • Animal research should also be explicitly
hormone may affect one human behaviour”, you linked to the argument about human
are expected to use a research study with human behaviour, for example by referring to the
participants. Animal studies can be used, however, assumption that animal research may inform
to support the arguments made about humans. We our understanding of human behaviour based
know that research with animals may inform our on physiological similarities.
understanding of human behaviour because animals • If the question on human behaviour is an SAQ
are in many aspects similar to humans. That said, (where you are normally expected to use only
there are some things you need to ensure. one piece of research in support), it would be
• Whenever you are using animal research to better not to use animal research at all.
answer a “human” question, this needs to be

cOMMOn errOrS
Ignoring details of the question such as The IB has a clear rule on when a pairing may be
quantifiers (such as “one”, “one or more”) separated.
and conjunctions (such as “and”, “or”, “and/ • Three pairings in the syllabus may be
or”) separated so that the question is formulated
When the question asks you to “Explain how one using one of the concepts only: Gender
hormone may influence one human behaviour”, it identity and social roles (Developmental
would be a mistake to talk about two examples of psychology), Dispositional factors and health
hormones because the second example will not be beliefs (Health psychology), and Trauma and
marked by the examiner. In the same way, when resilience (Developmental psychology).
you are asked about one human behaviour, you • The other pairings in the syllabus will not be
are expected to stay focused on one example. If separated and one can expect questions with
the question says “one or more”, you can choose the “and/or” conjunction.
either to focus on one example and explore it
deeply (the depth approach), or to provide two
or more examples and explore each of them in Using irrelevant knowledge to support the
less detail (the breadth approach). Both these answer
approaches in such cases are equally acceptable. This is something that you need to be very
Conjunctions (such as “and”, “or”, “and/or”) are careful about, as it may cost you a lot of marks.
also important. For example, suppose the question A typical example would be speaking about a
is “Evaluate research into psychological trauma neurotransmitter in response to a question about
and resilience”. The conjunction “and” suggests hormones. When this happens, the student is
that you need research concerning both trauma risking being awarded zero marks for that response,
and resilience. Although there is some overlap, no matter how well developed it is. Another typical
there exist separate bodies of research for these example is using animal research in an SAQ about
two phenomena. If the conjunction is “or”, you human behaviour. You should be absolutely certain
are supposed to choose one of the two; you cannot about which theories and research studies are
write about both because half of your response relevant to which parts of the syllabus. If you have
in this case will not be marked. If the question is doubts, do not hesitate to consult your teacher. To
“and/or”, it is up to you to choose between the further assist you, in parts 2–8 of this book where
depth approach and the breadth approach. we are discussing the content headings one by one,
typical mistakes will be highlighted again.

25