IB DP Psychology: Approaches to researching behaviour – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions. They follow the HL Paper 3 question pattern and 24-mark tariff, but both study summaries are invented for this exercise and describe no real published study – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

Related: Approaches to researching behaviour revision notes and the study guide.

IB DP Psychology HL Paper 3 (first assessment 2019) gives you one hour to answer three questions on an unseen summary of a study: Question 1 has three 3-mark parts on the research method, the sampling method and an alternative method (9 marks); Question 2 is on ethics (6 marks), asking either about the ethical considerations applied in the study or about ethics in reporting its results; and Question 3 (9 marks) asks about one of three issues – generalising the findings, ensuring credibility, or avoiding bias. All three questions are compulsory; the paper, not the candidate, decides which Question 3 issue appears. The two invented summaries below – one quantitative, one qualitative – practise the generalisation and credibility versions of Question 3. SL students can use them to sharpen the evaluation they need on Papers 1 and 2.

Study 1 (quantitative, invented)

Researchers investigated whether mobile phone notifications affect reading comprehension. Sixty undergraduate students were recruited through an advertisement on a university notice board and paid a small fee. They were randomly allocated to two conditions. In the notification condition, participants read a 1500-word text on a tablet while their own phone, placed face up on the desk, received five pre-arranged notifications. In the control condition, phones were collected before the session. Participants then answered 20 multiple-choice comprehension questions. Participants were told the study was about “reading on screens” and were debriefed afterwards about the true aim. The notification group scored a mean of 12.1 and the control group 15.4; the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

1. (a) Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method. [3] (b) Describe the sampling method used in the study. [3] (c) Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice. [3]

2. Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. [6]

3. Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study. [9]

Model answers – Study 1

1(a) A true laboratory experiment [1]. The independent variable (presence of notifications) was manipulated by the researcher [1], and participants were randomly allocated to conditions, so differences in comprehension can be attributed to the IV [1].

1(b) Self-selected (volunteer) sampling [1]: participants chose to respond to an advertisement on a university notice board [1]. This means the sample may consist of students who are more motivated or need the payment, and may not represent all students [1].

1(c) A field experiment in which students’ own study sessions in the library are compared with and without phone notifications [1-2], because it would test whether the effect holds in a natural setting and improve ecological validity [1]. (Alternatives such as semi-structured interviews to explore how students experience distraction are also creditable if justified.)

2 Applied: informed consent was presumably gained because participants volunteered and were told the study was about reading on screens; payment was given; participants were debriefed about the true aim, which addresses the deception. Deception was mild and arguably necessary, because knowing the aim could change how participants attended to their phones. Further considerations: participants should have been told of their right to withdraw, including withdrawing data after the debrief; the content of notifications should not cause distress or reveal private information; data should be stored anonymously. Markband guide: 5-6 for a description of applied considerations plus a clear explanation of further ones linked to the study; 3-4 if one part is limited; 1-2 for generic lists.

3 Sample-to-population generalisation: random allocation supports internal validity, but the sample of 60 volunteer undergraduates from one university limits generalisation to other age groups and to non-student readers. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) suggests the difference is unlikely to be due to chance within this sample, supporting generalisation to similar students. Ecological validity: a single 1500-word text and five arranged notifications in a lab may not reflect real reading, where notifications vary and people choose whether to check them. Cultural and technological context: habits of phone use differ between groups. Replication with different samples and in field settings would strengthen generalisation. Markband guide: 7-9 for a balanced, well-developed discussion of several factors linked to the study; 4-6 for some discussion that is partly generic; 1-3 for limited points.

Study 2 (qualitative, invented)

A psychologist wanted to understand how first-generation university students experience their first year. She interviewed 14 students who were the first in their family to attend university, recruiting the first five through a student support office and asking each to suggest others. Each semi-structured interview lasted about an hour and was audio-recorded with permission. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Three themes emerged: “feeling like an outsider”, “family pride and pressure” and “finding a guide”. The researcher, herself a first-generation graduate, kept a reflexive diary throughout.

1. (a) Identify the research method used and outline two characteristics of the method. [3] (b) Describe the sampling method used in the study. [3] (c) Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice. [3]

2. Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. [6]

3. Discuss how the researcher could ensure that the results of the study are credible. [9]

Model answers – Study 2

1(a) Semi-structured interview [1]. It uses a prepared set of open questions but allows the interviewer to follow up on answers [1], producing rich qualitative data in participants’ own words, analysed here by thematic analysis [1].

1(b) Snowball sampling [1]: the first five students were recruited through the support office and each suggested others [1]. It helps reach a specific group, but participants may share networks and experiences, so the sample may be homogeneous [1].

1(c) A focus group with first-generation students [1-2], because interaction between participants could reveal shared experiences and different perspectives that one-to-one interviews might miss, offering method triangulation [1].

2 Applied: consent for audio recording; voluntary participation; recruitment through a support office suggests sensitivity to participants’ welfare. Further: confidentiality and anonymity in reporting – quotations about family could identify individuals in a small group; participants should be told of the right to withdraw and to review transcripts; support should be available if interviews about feeling like an outsider cause distress; careful storage of recordings.

3 Credibility in qualitative research means the findings genuinely reflect participants’ experiences. Already applied: the reflexive diary helps the researcher notice how her own first-generation background might shape her questions and interpretation (researcher bias), and audio-recording with full transcription supports accurate analysis. Further steps: member checking – asking participants to confirm that the themes match what they meant; researcher triangulation – a second analyst, ideally not first-generation, coding the transcripts independently and comparing themes; method triangulation – adding a focus group or diary data to see whether the same themes appear; data triangulation – interviewing students at more than one university; and continuing interviews until data saturation, so the three themes are not an artefact of a small snowball sample of 14 who may share networks. A strong answer weighs each step (for example, member checking can make participants defer to the researcher) and links every point to this study. Markband guide: 7-9 for a balanced, well-developed discussion linked to the study; 4-6 for some discussion that is partly generic; 1-3 for limited points.

If Question 3 had asked about generalisation instead: qualitative research does not aim at sample-to-population generalisation; the relevant ideas are transferability (case-to-case generalisation, supported by rich description of the context) and theoretical generalisation (whether the themes support theories of belonging or social identity).

Frequently asked questions

Are the Paper 3 questions always the same? The guide publishes a set of static questions. Question 1(a)-(c) is the same every session; Question 2 is one of two ethics questions; Question 3 is one of three 9-mark questions (generalisation, credibility or bias). Your answers must adapt to whether the study is quantitative or qualitative.

How long should I spend on each question? About 2.5 minutes per mark: roughly 22 minutes on Question 1, 15 on Question 2 and 22 on Question 3.

Do I need to quote the study summary? Refer to its specific details – sample size, setting, procedure – in every answer; generic answers stay in the lower markbands.