IB Psychology SL Extended Essay Example

The topic is communicated clearly and immediately, so the reader knows the investigation is about oxytocin and interpersonal trust from the outset. This direct wording gives the essay a focused biological-psychology direction and helps frame the later literature review.

The research question is focused, but the phrasing is imprecise: “oxytocin levels influence” mixes endogenous levels with administered oxytocin, which are not methodologically equivalent. The student should decide whether the essay is about natural levels, intranasal administration, or both, and word the question accordingly.

The student states the scope and perspective of the investigation clearly, which helps readers understand the intended lens of analysis. This is effective because it signals both the topic and the disciplinary approach in one concise sentence.

The methodology would be stronger if the student explained how these criteria were applied in practice, for example by stating which databases were searched and why certain studies were prioritized. That would show informed selection rather than only listing inclusion rules.

The exclusion criteria are not applied consistently later in the essay, because several included studies have relatively small samples and some evidence concerns cooperation or reciprocity rather than trust directly. The student should either justify these exceptions or revise the criteria so they match the actual source base.

What evidence links this statement about mental disorders to the specific question on young adults and oxytocin? If the point is not developed later, it risks seeming like an unsupported aside rather than part of the investigation’s rationale.

The concept of interpersonal trust is defined clearly and in a way that fits the later analysis. This gives the essay a useful working definition that can be compared against the different operational measures used in the studies.

This is too categorical for a literature review. The student should soften the claim and distinguish between proposed influence and established fact, because later studies in the essay show that the relationship is context-dependent and not always direct.

This statement is too broad for the evidence presented and it shifts away from the essay’s focus on trust. The student should either support it with a source specific to the claim or remove it, so the background stays tightly linked to interpersonal trust.

The student could strengthen the knowledge base by briefly distinguishing the three mechanisms more explicitly and then returning to them throughout the essay. Reusing the same conceptual framework consistently would make the source application more coherent.

The conclusion overstates what the study can demonstrate. A single Trust Game result cannot prove that oxytocin works through affiliative motivation and social saliency; the student should present these as possible interpretations rather than confirmed mechanisms.

The student shows good awareness of the design, but the explanation would be stronger if the fMRI finding were linked more precisely to the behavioural conclusion. As written, the neural and behavioural evidence are described side by side without fully explaining how one supports the other.

This is a crucial methodological distinction and the student should use it more carefully throughout the essay. Endogenous oxytocin measurement cannot be treated as equivalent to intranasal administration, because the two approaches support different kinds of claims about causation.

If the study measured natural oxytocin levels rather than manipulating them, can it really “refute” a causal claim about oxytocin making people trust? The student should think about whether the design supports correlation more than cause-and-effect.

The student could improve source application by comparing the implications of replication failure with the strengths of the original studies more explicitly. That would show a more sophisticated understanding of why conflicting evidence matters rather than simply noting that studies disagree.

This reference is not used in the body of the essay, so it weakens the coherence of the evidence base. The student should either integrate it meaningfully into the discussion or remove unused sources from the bibliography.

The student selects a foundational study that is directly relevant to the research question, which gives the literature review a strong starting point. Using a landmark experiment helps establish why the topic matters and creates a basis for later comparison with replications and critiques.

The criticism is valid, but it remains general. The student should explain exactly how the artificial setting affects the trust measure, rather than only stating that it is unrealistic, so the methodological critique becomes more analytically useful.

The student could develop this line of analysis by explaining why revealing personal information improves ecological validity but may still not capture everyday trust. A brief comparison with the Trust Game would make the evaluation more nuanced.

The argument would be stronger if the student showed how the result specifically tests the model rather than just naming it. At the moment, the mechanism is asserted after the finding instead of being critically linked to the evidence.

This is a useful finding, but the student should be careful not to treat cooperation as identical to trust. A stronger analysis would explain what the task actually measures and why that distinction matters for answering the research question.

If oxytocin changes sensitivity to context rather than trust directly, how should that affect the final judgment about the research question? The student could use this distinction to build a more precise evaluation of the evidence.

This is strong evidence to include because it moves beyond a single study and allows the essay to weigh the broader pattern in the literature. The student uses it well as a counterbalance to the earlier experimental findings.

The point about limitations is good, but “clear causal connections” is too sweeping when the studies vary in what exactly they measure. The student should separate strong experimental control from the more cautious claim that the findings support causation within the task used.

This conclusion goes beyond what the study directly shows. The absence of oxytocin administration in a trust game can demonstrate that trust can occur without hormone manipulation, but it does not by itself prove that hormones are unimportant.

The evaluation would be stronger if the student briefly explained how these confounds change the weight of the evidence compared with the experimental studies. That would help move the discussion from description toward comparative judgment.

This is a strong example of balanced evaluation because the student identifies both the advantage and the limitation of the method. That kind of weighing of evidence is exactly what makes critical thinking convincing.

The conclusion is not fully decisive for a “to what extent” question. The student should state more clearly whether oxytocin has a major, minor, or context-dependent role, and justify that judgment by weighing the strongest studies against the weakest.

The student provides a word count, which satisfies the report convention and shows awareness of the essay’s required limits. Including this at the start makes the submission easier to verify.

Does the title page give the reader enough precise information about the investigation’s exact focus? The student might consider whether adding a more specific title would better reflect the research question and the biological angle of the essay.

The report follows a conventional extended-essay structure, which makes the argument easy to navigate. Clear sectioning helps the reader see where the literature review ends and the discussion begins, supporting the overall coherence of the presentation.

The table of contents appears to omit the conclusion, which makes the structure less complete than it could be. The student should make sure every major section is listed so the report’s organization matches its actual content.

The student labels the discussion clearly, which helps distinguish analysis from literature summary. This supports readability because the reader can easily tell when the essay shifts from reviewing evidence to weighing it.

This reference formatting is inconsistent with the others and makes the bibliography look unfinished. The student should standardize author names, titles, publication details, and URLs so the reference list appears carefully compiled.

The reference list is separated appropriately from the main argument, which is good practice. To make the presentation even stronger, the student should ensure the entries are consistently formatted and all cited sources are included only once.

This entry appears alongside a later duplicate StatPearls reference, which reduces consistency in the bibliography. The student should remove duplication and ensure that each source is cited in one clearly formatted version.