IB DP Psychology: Paper-by-Paper Exam Preparation

Course note (legacy syllabus): This resource describes IB DP Psychology for first assessment 2019, now in its final teaching cycle (last examination session November 2026). A replacement course (first assessment 2027) restructures the subject substantially. A companion resource for the 2027 course does not yet exist on this site.

The assessment revision notes set out what each paper weighs and tests. These notes turn that into an exam-day plan – a focused, single-approach essay on Paper 1, preparing both HL options equally for Paper 2, HL Paper 3’s separate methodology focus – with a worked example and a checklist, alongside the full syllabus guide already on the site.

Paper 1 (50% SL / 40% HL): answer the essay from one approach, in depth

Paper 1’s essay is chosen from a choice of three – one essay option for each of the biological, cognitive and sociocultural approaches – and is answered from that single approach; there is no credit specifically for bringing in a second approach within the essay itself. Exam-preparation priority: when planning a Paper 1 essay, choose the approach you are best prepared to evaluate in depth and stay within it throughout, since the skill Paper 1’s essay rewards is evaluation of that one approach’s theories and studies (naming a strength and a limitation of each), not breadth across approaches. The paper’s separate short-answer section can draw on any of the three approaches, so revision should cover all three for that section – it is only the essay choice itself that should stay single-approach once you have picked it.

Paper 2 (25% SL / 20% HL): prepare both HL options equally

SL students study one option and answer one essay question on it. HL students study two options, and Paper 2 requires one essay question from each of the two studied options, not a single essay covering one option only. Exam-preparation priority: because option content roughly doubles in hours between SL (20) and HL (40), HL students should revise their second option with the same depth as their first, rather than treating it as a lighter add-on – Paper 2 allocates equal marks to both.

HL Paper 3 (20%): methodology is its own revision strand, not an extension of Papers 1-2

Paper 3 tests research methodology specifically, requiring HL students to analyse qualitative/quantitative methods and evaluate research scenarios methodologically and ethically. Exam-preparation priority: because this is content and skill genuinely separate from Papers 1-2’s focus on approaches and options, revise Paper 3 as its own strand – reviewing methodological strengths and weaknesses of specific study designs and ethical considerations directly – rather than assuming strong Paper 1/2 preparation transfers automatically.

The internal assessment: the write-up must be individual, even though the study usually isn’t

The experimental study is usually designed and carried out in a small group, but the write-up, analysis and discussion must be entirely the student’s own individual work. Exam-preparation priority: when drafting the IA, avoid closely mirroring a group member’s structure or wording even where the underlying data and design are shared, since close similarity risks being flagged during external moderation – the analysis, discussion and evaluation should reflect the individual student’s own critical thinking about the study.

Command terms

Outline, describe and explain call for content-based recall and understanding. Evaluate, discuss and contrast require a reasoned judgement comparing theories, studies or approaches. To what extent expects a weighed, evidence-based conclusion rather than a one-sided answer.

Worked practice scenario: an evaluate-style Paper 1 answer plan

Question: “Evaluate one theory of the biological approach to explaining behaviour.”

Step 1 - state the theory clearly and its key claim (biological approach):
[named theory] proposes that [named behaviour] can be explained by
[named biological mechanism, e.g. hormone, brain structure, genetics].

Step 2 - support with study evidence:
Cite a named study supporting the theory, briefly describing its
method and finding.

Step 3 - evaluate methodologically:
Comment on a strength or limitation of the supporting study's method
(e.g. correlational vs experimental design, ecological validity,
sample generalisability) -- distinct from simply restating findings.

Step 4 - evaluate the theory's explanatory reach, within the same approach:
Consider a second biological study or a competing biological
explanation of the same behaviour -- does it support, qualify or
complicate the named theory? (This stays within the biological
approach; bringing in a cognitive or sociocultural explanation here
is not required and is not separately credited on this paper.)

Step 5 - conclude with a judgement:
State, briefly, how convincing the theory is overall, given both the
supporting evidence and its limitations.

This five-step structure keeps the answer from stopping at description (Steps 3-4) and drives it towards a reasoned judgement (Step 5) – exactly the combination “evaluate” is testing within a single, well-developed approach, and the same structure that Paper 2’s option essays and HL Paper 3’s methodological evaluations reuse.

Before/during exam checklist

• Before the exam: practise Paper 1 essay plans for all three approaches so you can choose confidently on the day, then commit to evaluating that one approach in depth; HL students should revise both Paper 2 options with equal depth, not just the first one studied; HL students should revise Paper 3 methodology as its own strand; check the IA write-up for independent wording and analysis distinct from any group member’s version.
• During Paper 1: before finishing an essay, check that you have evaluated (not just described) the theory or study, with a genuine strength and limitation, within the approach you chose.
• During Paper 2: confirm which two options you are answering on (HL) and allocate time evenly between them.
• During HL Paper 3: treat each research scenario methodologically and ethically, not just descriptively.
• On every paper: match the response to the command term – “outline” is not “evaluate.”

Self-test

1. How many approaches does a Paper 1 essay need to draw on to be well prepared, and why?
2. How many options does an HL student study for Paper 2, and how many essay questions does Paper 2 require from them?
3. Why must the internal assessment write-up be individual, even though the experiment is often conducted in a group?
4. What does HL Paper 3 specifically test, that Papers 1 and 2 do not?

Answers: 1. One – the essay is chosen from a choice of three (one per approach) and is answered from that single approach in depth; the paper does not specifically credit bringing in a second approach within the essay. (The separate short-answer section can draw on any of the three approaches, so all three still need revising overall.) 2. Two options; one essay question from each of the two studied options, not a single essay covering one option only. 3. Because the write-up, analysis and discussion must reflect the individual student’s own work; closely mirroring a group member’s write-up risks being flagged during external moderation, even where the underlying study was conducted together. 4. Research methodology – analysing qualitative versus quantitative methods and evaluating research scenarios methodologically and ethically, as a distinct skill from applying content knowledge.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Subject Brief – Individuals and Societies: Psychology, first assessment 2019, published 2018 – the same source cited by the assessment revision notes and full syllabus guide. The worked scenario above is an original example written for this resource, not a reproduction of any official past or sample paper question.