IB Psychology (First Exam 2027) SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is sharply framed as a mechanism comparison, which gives the essay a clear investigative purpose. The phrase “To what extent” also signals an evaluative rather than purely descriptive task, which is appropriate for a literature-based EE.

The structure is clear, and the section sequence supports the argument well. The student could make the communication even stronger by adding a brief preview sentence in the introduction that explains how Sections 3–6 will separate phenomenon, mechanism, and comparison.

This boundary-setting is helpful, but it also creates construct drift: the essay starts from credibility and then relies heavily on studies about warmth, employability, and preference. The student should explain more explicitly how each outcome still answers the same research question, or narrow the question to match the evidence base.

The search process is clear at a high level, but it is not yet reproducible. The student should add the date range searched, inclusion/exclusion rules in fuller detail, and how many studies were screened at each stage so the method can be evaluated more transparently.

This is a strong methodological choice because the source categories reflect different evidential value, not just different authors or topics. That distinction helps the essay avoid overclaiming from meta-analyses, foundation studies, and direct mechanism tests as if they carried the same weight.

The weighting rules show sophisticated understanding of evidence quality. Prioritising manipulations over mediation and preregistered replications over original findings is a strong way to demonstrate control over the literature rather than simply summarising it.

This is a strong conceptual move because it situates the field historically and shows why matched-guise research matters. The student uses the classic study not as decoration but as the methodological basis for later comparison, which deepens subject understanding.

This is a real limitation because later claims depend on sources the student could not fully verify. The essay should be more cautious wherever those papers are central, and it should clearly separate conclusions drawn from full-text reading from those drawn from abstracts only.

The reasoning is analytical rather than descriptive: the student links the design of the second experiment to the theoretical claim it tests. That logic helps the reader see why the result matters, not just what the result was.

This is a valuable caveat, but the analysis should then be more explicit about how much confidence remains in the conclusion from this study. The student should either qualify the claim further or use another source that isolates fluency more cleanly.

The comparison is insightful, but the essay should be careful not to imply the effect sizes are directly comparable when they come from different contrasts and designs. A brief explanation of why the metrics are only suggestive, not definitive, would make the inference more defensible.

This is a strong analytical distinction. The student does not treat any measure of category fit as equivalent to the theory itself, which shows careful evaluation of operationalisation and avoids a common overinterpretation in literature reviews.

This is excellent line-of-argument work because the student applies the method rules consistently even when they weaken the preferred conclusion. That shows the conclusion is evidence-led rather than outcome-led.

This is a particularly strong evaluative insight because it reframes the debate rather than simply choosing a winner. The student recognises that the two accounts may operate at different levels, which makes the evaluation more sophisticated and balanced.

This is a promising future research direction. The student could strengthen the evaluation by sketching one concrete design variable at a time—such as cue type, participant group, or outcome measure—so the proposed test becomes more actionable.

This is a useful limitation, but the essay could go further by proposing concrete ways to address it. The student should suggest outcome-based designs, such as behavioural hiring or interaction measures, rather than stopping at the observation that ratings are not real-world consequences.

This is a strong evaluation because it identifies a limitation and explains exactly how it affects the argument. The student shows why the essay is stronger on accent evaluation broadly than on the narrower credibility claim, which is the kind of nuance examiners reward.

This reflection is unusually candid and evaluative. It shows genuine awareness of interpretive bias and demonstrates transfer beyond this essay, because the student is thinking about how personal preference can shape evidence selection in future research.