Psychology higher level and standard level

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022

International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Contents

Grade boundaries 3
Higher level and standard level internal assessment 4
Higher level paper one 7
Standard level paper one 10
Higher level paper two 13

Page 2 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

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 N21 cohort. Two significant conditions which do not normally
feature in grade boundary setting have had to be satisfied during the boundary setting for the N21 session; the need to
apply reasonable standards to adjusted assessment models for candidates who have restricted access to learning during
the COVID pandemic and the need to maintain parity with candidates who undertook the non-examination route.

Higher level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-8 9-17 18-29 30-44 45-57 58-72 73-100

Standard level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-8 9-19 20-27 28-41 42-54 55-68 69-100

Page 3 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Higher level and standard level internal assessment

The range and suitability of the work submitted
The investigations were typically from the Cognitive approach to understanding behaviour, with some
limited examples from the Sociocultural approach. Popular studies to replicate included Stroop (1933;
1935), Landry and Bartling (2011), Loftus and Palmer (1975), Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014), Tversky and
Kahneman (1974) and Glanzer and Cunitz (1966). These studies are very suitable as they offer both a
methodologically and ethically sound approach. Additionally, these studies are easily linked to an
appropriate model or theory.
The stronger investigations only had two conditions and this is highly recommended for future
candidates; there is no need to have more than two conditions, and this only makes the internal
assessment (IA) far more challenging for the candidates.
Ethics were largely adhered to in the IAs, with most candidates describing how ethical guidelines were
followed in the Exploration section as well as including the relevant materials (for example, consent form)
in the appendices. Referencing, both in-text and in the works cited, overall was done well with reports
following standard referencing guidelines for both.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion I. Introduction
Most of the reports did include a theory or model in the Introduction in comparison with previous sessions
but struggled to explain the link to the investigation. More often, the link was made between
the replicated study and their own investigation which is not required. At times, the description of the
model/theory could have been more detailed.
Many candidates wrote long summaries of the original study but did not use the study effectively to
explain a theory. The original study is not required, but if used effectively, could be used to illustrate the
theory.
Some weaker reports described cognitive biases, for example, anchoring bias, or an effect, for example,
serial position effect, but did not include the theory/model upon which it is based.
The aim of the study was sometimes very generic
candidates did not clearly explain the relevance of the investigation, with this often being a superficial
reason that was not pertinent to the actual investigation.
The IV and DV were generally operationalized, but candidates should also ensure their hypotheses are
clear, as at times, they lacked clarity. Candidates that attempted to investigate more than one level of the
independent variable rarely stated the hypotheses coherently.
Candidates should also be aware that if their hypothesis is directional or non-directional, the inferential
calculations should reflect this; that is, one-tailed calculations or two-tailed calculations respectively.
Criterion II. Exploration
Most candidates described or stated all aspects of exploration (design, sampling technique, participants,
controlled variables and materials) well, but some did not include why they were chosen.
Also, some explanations were at times formulaic and did not link the explanations of the design, sampling
technique or controls directly to their investigation. For example, many candidates discussed why a design

Page 4 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

was used for example, to avoid order effects but never explained its relevance to their actual
investigation.
Materials were often described, but not explained. If a word list is used, it is important to explain why these
words were chosen. If a video was used, what considerations were made when choosing the video?
Letters of consent and debriefing notes are not materials that should be explained. The focus should be
on materials that were part of the experiment. Candidates should not provide links to materials as these
links are not active when received by the examiner.
The better Exploration sections were organized by the criterion descriptors.
It is also encouraged for candidates to include a procedure in this section as they will need to evaluate this

Criterion III. Analysis

Some candidates struggled with the appropriate application of descriptive statistics, for example,
presenting the median with the standard deviation. In addition, many candidates did not know how to
interpret the standard deviation. They often discussed the absolute rather than the relative value of the
standard deviation. Also, good practice would be limiting calculations to two significant figures.
A few reports did not include the calculations and/or raw data in the appendices. This is essential for the
examiner, otherwise it cannot be determined if the calculations presented are accurate.
Graphs were generally labelled accurately and reflected the research hypothesis, but some presented
histograms rather than bar graphs. The lines of the bars should not be touching.
Only one measure of central tendency and one measure of dispersion is required in the report. Candidates
should base this choice on the level of data in the study. Likewise, the choice of inferential statistics should
be based on the level of data and the design.
Some candidates employed the use of the t-test without clear justification. If parametric assumptions are
not met, a t-test is not the most appropriate choice.
At times, the statements of significance were not clearly presented for the inferential tests, with very little
understanding shown regarding what the calculations have shown with reference to the hypotheses.
Candidates should interpret the statistical findings (both descriptive and inferential) as well as linking the
inferential statistical findings explicitly to the hypothesis.
Criterion IV. Evaluation
The requirement here is for the findings to be discussed with reference to the theory/model presented in
the Introduction, however many candidates only made brief reference, and instead compared their results
in detail to the replicated study (which is not required).
Some candidates did not evaluate all three required aspects (design, procedure and sample) but instead
focused only on one or two, or only on the limitations of all three.
Evaluations were at times poorly organized and lacking in coherence, making assessment difficult as
candidates did not take a systematic approach to evaluating the design, sample and procedure.
Candidates were also not able to distinguish between their design and their procedure, or confused
evaluating the research design with the research method (experiment).

It is important that the evaluation and modifications presented are not superficial and/or generic; they
should be explained and linked to their investigation.
There were many misconceptions. These included:

Page 5 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

• misused.
•
• There must be an equal number of males and females.
• Sample size was discussed as a limitation and a modification.
Another issue was stating that occurrences like 'conducting our experiment in a busy corridor' or 'the
internet failing to work' were limitations of the procedure. These are errors in planning or conducting the
experiment, not limitations.
Finally, modifications were general in nature and not linked to the limitations of the investigation and/or
were superficial, for example, include a larger sample size.

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 IA. Sharing
the assessment criteria would also potentially help candidates understand the requirements more fully.
Teachers should encourage candidates to keep their investigation simple with only two conditions of the
IV. Making an IA more complex does not make it better.
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.
Candidates should practise hypotheses writing in order to operationalize the IV and DV and should also
be clear about the direction of their hypothesis 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, for example rtant to know how

important to know why this sampling procedure would have limitations in context to the experiment
being conducted. The concept of controls needs to be 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
test is appropriate. Often candidates have conducted an analysis which has been inaccurate, and that
inaccuracy has been missed by the teacher. Knowing and learning about statistics is essential for both the
teacher and the candidate.
Some 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.
Some centres did not adhere to the referencing guidelines.
All reports should be anonymized, including the candidate name, school code, school name, and so on.
The word count and should be stated on the cover page (and the
word count should adhere to the limit).

Page 6 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Higher level paper one

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the
candidates
Candidates often struggled to define terms. Common definitions included that individualistic societies
focus on the individual, that reconstructive memory is when memory is reconstructed, or that neural
. Using the terms to define themselves demonstrated limited
conceptual understanding.
When writing Section A responses, candidates often did not explicitly link the study back to the demands
of the question.
In addition, candidates demonstrated limited evidence of critical thinking. Often a simple approach of

bias or the original intention of the study.

Ecological validity refers to the environment in which the study was done and whether the findings can

instead, it has to do with external validity. Population validity is whether we can generalize the sample to
the population from which the sample was drawn. Many candidates argued that the sample could not be
generalized to the whole world population, but this is a conceptual misunderstanding.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
Candidates demonstrated a wide breadth of knowledge of research relevant to the three approaches to
understanding behaviour. Writing was generally clear and well developed.
Candidates also demonstrated very good understanding of a breadth of research studies. Research
studies were often used effectively to build an argument.
Responses were often well structured and communicated effectively.

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

questions
Question 1
Many candidates did not understand that neural pruning has to do with the elimination of dendritic
branching or the elimination of synapses, not of entire neurons. Some candidates demonstrated an
excellent understanding of neural pruning, but some responses were oversimplified to the point of being
incorrect. Several candidates focused solely on neuroplasticity and failed to outline neural plasticity.

Question 2
Several candidates did not describe schema theory in any appropriate detail, often simply defining
-
learning. There was often a lack of clarity with regard to top-down processing or the role of schema in
memory reconstruction. Many responses described the different types of schema, even though this was
often irrelevant to the study that was described.

Page 7 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

There were several good descriptions of research, but often the results were overly simplified, lacking
understanding of the complexities of the role of schema in cognition.

Question 3
There were several very strong responses where the effect of culture was clearly outlined and an
appropriate study was used to demonstrate this effect. However, there were also several responses that
lacked focus, providing long lists of definitions that were not made relevant to the response.
Responses focused on enculturation or acculturation often did not answer the question of an effect of

behaviour of the adults, not in the children.

Question 4
There were many very impressive responses to this question. Candidates showed excellent knowledge of
the role of animal models in genetic research and had a very good understanding of the limitations of
both the research and the use of the models.
There were, however, several common errors in the approach to the response. Several candidates focused
on ethical considerations in animal research, rather than on the demands of the question. There were also
some responses that used research, such as Meaney (1988), but failed to link the study to genetics. There
were also several responses that used an animal study for one behaviour, but then a human study for
another behaviour for example,
on the 5-HTT gene and depression.
Some candidates argued that we cannot learn anything from animal models. This demonstrated a lack of
understanding of their potential value in understanding behaviour.

Question 5
There were several very good responses where candidates discussed the value of a memory model, the
reconstructive nature of memory, the value of the Dual Process Model, or the accuracy of flashbulb
memories.

writing about a large range of ideas with no clear argument.

Weaker responses failed to provide any theoretical framework or conceptual understanding, often
including over simplified definitions of terms and focusing too much on describing a significant number
of studies.

Question 6
Strong responses focused on one or two ethical considerations and discussed the implications of the
considerations in some detail.
Weaker responses included long lists of ethical considerations with no clear explanations.
Several candidates overstated the ethical concerns and some cases were mistaken in their claims that
ethical standards were not met.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Have candidates use the PEEL method when writing responses Point, Evidence, Evaluation, Link. It is
important that they are explicit about why a piece of research is relevant or why an evaluation point is

Page 8 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

• There needs to be more consideration as to what is necessary in responding to a question. Have

candidates write practice outlines for potential essays and discuss which information could be left out
of the essay without compromising the response to the question.
• More time needs to be spent to mastering the vocabulary of critical thinking. Candidates should

ecological validity. This could be developed in different ways in the classroom e.g. through debates,
different types of writing assignments and peer review.
• When teaching candidates to write extended responses, introductions should be short but clearly
outline what will be discussed in the response. There needs to be greater consideration of what terms
need to be defined as well as what theory or concepts must be unpacked in greater detail in order to
demonstrate relevant understanding.

Page 9 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Standard level paper one

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the
candidates
Candidates often struggled with conceptual understanding and linking empirical evidence. For example,
some responses didn't have an apparent link between the outlined/described concept and the chosen
study. The majority of these kinds of responses were awarded mid-band marks.
Many responses showed limited knowledge and understanding of empirical research. In addition, studies
were described with fundamental omissions in some cases, implying the use of different methods.
Theories were described with some detail but in many cases, failed to grasp the essential concepts.
Ethical evaluation of research was particularly irrelevant, showing little knowledge and understanding of
the value of ethics in psychological research.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
Candidates appeared to grasp the use of the command terms, and the majority of the responses centred
on the demands of the question, using relevant studies.
There was also an impressively broad range of studies and relevant research. The use of classic studies
such as Bandura and Zimbardo continued, but several candidates used modern and varied research.

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

questions
Question 1
Candidates showed appropriate knowledge and understanding of neural pruning and its relation to
neuroplasticity. Draganski et al. and Maguire et al. were the two most cited studies.
Top band responses gave a detailed account of the process of neural pruning and its role in
neuroplasticity, with explicit mention of the cerebral area involved in the chosen study.
Low band responses outlined only neuroplasticity or described neurotransmission without mentioning
neural pruning.
Question 2
Candidates performed inconsistently on this question. There seemed to be a general understanding of
schema, but its relevance in the cognitive process wasn't grasped.
There were often some inaccurate claims of the role of schema in cognitive processes such as thinking and
decision-making.
Relevant studies such as Bransford and Johnson, Brewer and Treyens, Cohen et al. were described.
Although the studies were relevant to the question, some candidates failed to link the study with the
theory outlined in the introduction. Instead, top responses made the explicit link, for example, Cohen's
study was linked to stereotypes as a type of social schema.

Page 10 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Question 3
Candidates used relevant studies to illustrate the role of culture in cognition/ behaviour. Berry et al. was,
by far, the most used study in responses to this question.
However, many candidates failed to link culture with a specific cognition/behaviour, providing long and
often irrelevant cultural definitions. These responses obtained mid-band marks since an understanding of
the role of culture in behaviour/cognition was relevant but limited.

Question 4
This question was the most popular choice in section B.
There were robust responses to this question. Candidates seemed well prepared, showing knowledge and
understanding of pheromones and hormones using relevant research linked to both messengers. There
was a broad combination of responses discussing only pheromones, only hormones or a combination of
both. Responses using pheromones and hormones allowed candidates to show relevant knowledge and
understanding, obtaining higher marks in criteria B and C.
Pheromones seem to be a preferred topic, and most candidates impressively discussed them, grasping
areas of uncertainty and methodological issues of the role of pheromones in mating or attachment and
detailed descriptions of relevant studies.
Very few responses used neurotransmitters instead of hormones, obtaining lower marks as a result.

Question 5
An impressive range of knowledge about cognitive processes was displayed in this question.
Strong responses centred on the discussion of models of memory, reconstructive memory, and thinking
and decision-making. Throughout the essay, these responses remained focused regarding the chosen
areas to discuss.
On several occasions, candidates were unfocused about the discussion, for example some started
explaining memory models and ended up concluding about the role of schemas in cognition.
Low band responses were primarily descriptive and didn't address any discussion points.

Question 6
Very few candidates chose to answer this question. Top responses showed knowledge and understanding
centring on one or two ethical considerations and used relevant research linked to the question. However,
the discussion was often formulaic, jumping to conclusions about unmet ethical standards.
Low band responses seemed unfocused, providing a long list of ethical considerations, mentioning the
importance of following ethical standards on research and describing studies without a link to ethical
considerations. In other cases, candidates only provided extensive methodological descriptions of
sociocultural research without addressing ethical issues, scoring zero in knowledge and understanding.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Candidates must constantly practise basic writing skills in class.
• Psychological vocabulary should be emphasized and reviewed constantly. It is essential to advise
candidates that formulaic methodological analysis of studies does not show accuracy in comprehension
and understanding. Less is more in the evaluation of research.

Page 11 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

• Ethical considerations were often misunderstood or wrongly applied. Classroom activities must focus
on incorporating the importance of ethical standards in psychological knowledge and as a tool for
promoting critical thinking.

Page 12 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Higher level paper two

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the
candidates
Some candidates had a difficult time in addressing questions in a focused manner the responses they
provided failed to fit the question and/or command term. It was fairly common to see responses that were
providing evidence of knowledge of the topic but not fully addressing the question as it was set. Some of
these responses seemed to be generic responses relevant for a certain approach or explanation but not
responses aiming to address what the question was specifically asking for.
Also, many candidates struggled to provide clear evidence of evaluation or discussion which would fit the
question. Although there was often evidence of critical thinking, the presentation of arguments did not
reflect that the candidate was trying to display critical thinking skills relevant to the full question. Most
candidates tended to simply evaluate studies in terms of methodological and ethical issues but failed to
explain how this was relevant to the question stated.
It appeared that some questions/topics were more challenging than others. Questions 1, 6 and 11 tended
to provoke candidates to provide either responses that were not focused or candidates responded to the
question with general knowledge of the topic.
Perhaps due to lack of exam practice some candidates tended to provide essays which were written in
bullet form or with several subtitles. By using these subtitles candidates would try to indicate how the
response met different criteria.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
Overall a good number of responses were focused on the question; the majority of candidates managed
to identify the problem and many managed to go beyond this by explaining the problem and the issues
involved throughout the essay.
Many candidates seemed well prepared in terms of general knowledge and knowledge of the options.
Most responses included knowledge of both theories and research relevant for the question stated. In
addition, the majority of candidates were able to evaluate or otherwise provide evidence of critical
thinking skills. Most popular and usually well addressed were the options Abnormal Psychology and
Human Relationships. In addition to this Developmental Psychology seems to be gaining popularity with
a rather large number of candidates doing a good job and addressing questions in a focused manner.
In the majority of cases, responses to questions tended to be well organized and structured reflecting that
teachers are providing more exercises which help candidates develop appropriate writing skills.

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

questions
Question 1
This was a rather popular choice and was addressed with a wide range of different responses. Some
responses provided some knowledge but limited understanding of validity and/or reliability. On the other
hand, high quality responses provided a focused appraisal of biases related to diagnosis. Unfortunately,
some candidates failed to address the question set and decided to discuss the issue of normality versus
abnormality in a general manner. Critical thinking was also a bit uneven, with some candidates using

Page 13 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

theory or studies to foster a logical argument, while others seemed to focus on heavy criticism of diagnosis
and psychiatry in general but failed to support their arguments with relevant knowledge.

Question 2
This was one of the most popular questions on the exam, and was, for the most part, answered well. Most
candidates seemed to be well prepared for this question and had clear knowledge of one or more
explanations for one psychological disorder. Responses focusing on one or two explanations tended to
be focused and well written, providing a good balance between knowledge and evidence of critical
thinking. Popular examples of psychological disorders were major depressive disorder and post-traumatic
stress disorder. Popular explanations were biological explanations (role of genes or role of
neurotransmitters) and cognitive explanations. Unfortunately, some candidates failed to address the
question fully since they attempted to focus on describing and evaluating research studies of one or more
explanations for one psychological disorder.

Question 3
This w
part of the question and wrote thorough responses on treatments of psychological disorders this
approach had quite an adverse effect on their overall marks. Popular choices included studies which
compared two types of treatments in a controlled trial.

Question 4
This was not extremely popular with candidates, but some did a nice job of responding to the question.
Candidates addressing this question focused on the role of culture or gender in the development of
identity. Although responses reflected good knowledge of theories and research, critical thinking seemed
to be a bit weak for this response.

Question 5
Was the most popular question within this option. Candidate
research and generally addressed both
strengths and limitations within theory and research. Unfortunately, some candidates ignored the

Question 6
This question was popular, but not always answered well. Some candidates used general knowledge to
discuss the benefits of peers and play
to focus on different types of play and their impact on cognitive or social

Question 7
Few candidates attempted to answer this question. Those who chose it responded well by choosing one
or two health promotion strategies and describing and evaluating studies assessing the effectiveness of
these. A few candidates attempted to focus on evaluating health promotion not the studies.

Question 8
Candidates addressing this question chose to focus on stress, addiction or obesity. Most candidates
managed to provide evidence of knowledge but a few candidates chose to write general responses by
discussing stress or obesity but not risk and/or protective factors related to them. Critical thinking here
was fairly limited as it clearly did not fit the question.

Page 14 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022
November 2021 subject report Psychology HL/SL

Question 9
This was a rather popular question within the option. Most candidates evaluated the biomedical model or
theory of planned behaviour of a specific health problem (most popular were stress and addiction). In the
majority of cases candidates did a good job evaluating the explanation by providing supporting or
contradictory empirical evidence.

Question 10
This was a popular choice. Candidates generally did a good job addressing this question and in the
majority of cases managed to provide one or more explanations of the formation of personal relationships.
Evidence of critical thinking was offered by either addressing cultural or gender considerations or by
suggesting alternative explanations. Some candidates wrongly chose to write about how relationships
change or end with long descriptions of the four horsemen of the apocalypse this approach failed to
gain many marks.

Question 11
This was the least popular question within the option but was usually well addressed. Candidates usually
chose to discuss realistic group conflict theory and/or social identity theory as appropriate explanations.
In the majority of cases candidates focused on one or two studies investigating origins of conflict a very

overly detailed descriptions of this study and consequently ran out of time therefore providing only an
outline of the evaluation.

Question 12
This was also very popular, but not evenly addressed. As with question 11, some candidates did a very
good job of identifying and describing classic studies and included evaluation by focusing on
methodological or cultural considerations. However, some candidates wrongly chose to evaluate different
explanations of social responsibility and the response did not have a focus on research studies this
approach failed to earn high marks.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

In the majority of cases candidates seemed well prepared academically, but not necessarily in terms of
examination technique. Examiners often reported responses were not earning high marks due to
following issues:
• The candidate did not recognize or ignored the command term
• The candidate deliberately changed the command term (for example, i
candidate chose to
• The response was overly descriptive
• The candidate ignored a crucial part of the question (for example, ignored the words research
study/studies or explanation/s .
• The response provided generic evidence of critical thinking by offering general evaluation of every
study but not explaining how this evaluation is relevant for the question stated.

Page 15 / 15
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022