IB Psychology SL Extended Essay Example

The student could make the delimitations more visible in the research question itself, not only in the introduction. Stating the platform, age range, and whether the essay examines onset, worsening, or both would improve precision and make later analysis easier to align.

The student states the research question clearly and also signals the intended scope by narrowing to adolescents and Instagram. That helps the reader immediately understand the investigation’s direction and gives the essay a coherent focus to build from.

The purpose is explicit and relevant: the student explains why the topic matters for adolescent mental health and shows why the investigation is worth doing. This kind of purposeful framing strengthens focus because the reader can see the practical and academic value of the study.

The wording is still too broad because it combines “rise of social media,” “significant role,” and both “onset or worsening,” which pushes the question toward a causal claim the evidence cannot fully prove. The student should tighten the question around one platform, one age group, and one relationship, such as exacerbation of symptoms rather than onset.

The student could explain more explicitly why Instagram was selected over Facebook or TikTok as the main case study. A short justification comparing platform features would strengthen the methodology and show more informed source selection.

This is a strong contextual definition because it explains why Instagram is especially relevant to appearance-based comparison. The student connects the platform’s visual design directly to the investigation, which shows clear methodological awareness of why this source of data matters.

This claim is too sweeping without direct evidence. The student should avoid presenting algorithmic behaviour as established fact unless a source specifically demonstrates it, or else qualify it more carefully as a possible tendency rather than a universal design outcome.

The student shows solid foundational knowledge by defining BDD accurately and locating it within the DSM-5 classification. That kind of precise opening establishes credibility and provides a reliable conceptual base for the rest of the essay.

This explanation is imprecise: underdiagnosis is not mainly because people “do not present any symptoms,” but because symptoms may be concealed, misattributed, or not recognised by others and clinicians. The student should use more exact clinical language to avoid oversimplifying how BDD is identified.

The student uses appropriate psychological theory and links it directly to the topic. This is effective knowledge application because the theories are not just named; they are positioned as explanatory tools for understanding why Instagram could affect body-image concerns.

This sentence moves too quickly from insecurity to diagnosable BDD, which blurs the distinction between body dissatisfaction, risk factors, and clinical disorder. The student should distinguish symptoms or vulnerability markers from confirmed onset so the psychological discussion remains clinically precise.

The student demonstrates good conceptual understanding by applying objectification theory directly to Instagram-related behaviours. This works well because the theory is used to explain a mechanism, not merely described in isolation.

The student should consider revising this sentence for clearer subject-verb agreement and more precise terminology. Tightening the wording would help the argument read more convincingly and prevent the psychology from being weakened by imprecise expression.

The inference here goes beyond what the study alone demonstrates. The student should be careful not to convert a negative affect result into a direct claim about BDD development without additional evidence linking that emotional change to clinical symptoms over time.

This is strong critical engagement because the student evaluates the study rather than accepting it uncritically. The comment on ecological validity shows awareness that short laboratory exposure cannot fully represent real Instagram use.

This is a useful point, but it would be stronger if the student explained what specific evidence would be needed to support causation, such as longitudinal tracking or pre/post measures. Without that, the evaluation stops at limitation rather than developing a more analytical comparison of study designs.

The student evaluates the evidence critically by considering cultural limits, qualitative design, and the difference between feelings and clinical diagnosis. This is effective analysis because it shows the student can judge how far the findings can actually be applied.

The limitations section would become more powerful if each limitation were tied directly to the research question and then followed by its implication for the conclusion. That would make the evaluation more synthetic and show how limitations affect the strength of the overall claim.

What evidence does the student have that the platform’s recommendations reliably produce the kind of “echo chamber” described here? A more careful distinction between a plausible mechanism and a demonstrated finding would make this evaluation more convincing.

The conclusion is stronger than the evidence presented, especially on “onset,” which the essay itself repeatedly qualifies as difficult to prove. The student should align the final judgement more closely with the evidence and frame social media as a likely exacerbating factor rather than a clearly established cause.

The student strengthens the discussion by using specific measures from the study and by including supportive counterevidence. That improves balance and demonstrates a more critical approach than a one-sided argument would.

The student could improve structural clarity by reducing repetition in adjacent headings and ensuring section titles do distinct jobs. A cleaner hierarchy would make the argument easier to scan and signal more deliberate organisation.

Including a dedicated limitations section is a strong structural choice because it creates space for evaluation before the conclusion. That sequencing helps the essay move from explanation to judgement in a way that is academically appropriate.

The essay has a clear, conventional structure, and the introduction leads naturally into the theoretical sections and later evaluation. This makes the argument easy to follow and supports the coherence of the investigation as a whole.

The table of contents lists both “Bibliography” and “Works Cited,” but the report appears to use only one reference list heading. The student should keep section labels consistent so the structure matches the actual document and avoids confusion for the reader.

This sentence signals the essay’s direction well, but the phrasing is a little wordy and repetitive. The student could tighten topic sentences like this to make the structure feel more controlled and purposeful.

The reference list is generally well organised, with entries presented in a consistent bibliography section. This supports readability and shows that the student has attempted to document sources systematically.