IB Psychology — Study Hub

IB Psychology has two examined papers at SL plus a research-proposal internal assessment. Paper 1 tests the three approaches — biological, cognitive and sociocultural — with short-answer questions, an applied scenario in a named context and a concept-framed essay (50% at SL, 35% at HL). Paper 2 tests research methodology through your own class practical and an essay evaluating an unseen study (25% at SL and HL). The internal assessment is a hypothetical research proposal (25% at SL, 20% at HL). HL students also sit Paper 3, a source-based data-analysis paper on one HL extension topic (20% at HL).

SL and HL share the three approaches, the four contexts, research methodology and the internal assessment. The differences are scope and the extra HL paper: HL covers more content across the year (240 teaching hours versus 150) and adds Paper 3, a source-based data-analysis paper on one HL extension topic — culture, motivation, technology, or data analysis and interpretation. The HL extension asks you to interpret data across several sources and reach a "to what extent" synthesis. Aimnova covers the full SL course and the HL extension.

No. In the redesigned course (first assessment 2027) studies are illustrative only — the IB does not assess recall of specific named studies, and a hypothetical example earns the same credit as a real one. The skill being marked is explaining a psychological mechanism or theory and then evaluating it, not reciting who ran which experiment in which year. The strongest answers use a study as evidence within an argument rather than as the argument itself.

The course is built on six cross-cutting concepts that frame how you analyse behaviour: bias, causality, change, measurement, perspective and responsibility. They run through the three approaches, the research methodology and the contexts, and they explicitly frame parts of the assessment — Section C of Paper 1 is a concept-framed essay, and Section B of Paper 2 asks you to discuss an unseen study against these concepts. Thinking in concepts is what turns description into evaluation.

Explain, then evaluate. The top band rewards a clear explanation of the mechanism or theory followed by genuine evaluation — weighing evidence, alternative explanations and the six concepts rather than listing studies. Learn the command terms, use studies as illustrative evidence instead of memorised facts, and practise applying content to unseen scenarios in the four contexts. Know your own class practical thoroughly for Paper 2, and always leave time to reach a judgement supported by concepts like causality, bias and measurement.