Question 1a: identifying a physiological response to stress
This question appeared simple, but it revealed a persistent misunderstanding about categorisation. Students were asked to identify one physiological response to a stressor described in the scenario. The Examiner’s Report notes that many students instead described psychological or emotional responses, such as fear, worry, or anxiety.
While these responses were relevant to the experience of stress, they did not meet the category specified by the question. Physiological responses involve bodily changes mediated by the nervous or endocrine systems, such as increased heart rate, pupil dilation, or cortisol release. Students who named a correct physiological response were awarded the mark immediately. Students who described feelings or thoughts, even accurately, received no credit.
This question demonstrates how tightly VCAA enforces categorical boundaries. Knowing the difference between physiological, psychological, and behavioural responses is not an extension skill. It is a baseline expectation.
Question 1b: evaluating the effectiveness of a coping strategy
In the second part of this question, students were required to evaluate the effectiveness of a coping strategy in the context of the stressor described. The Examiner’s Report indicates that many students lost marks by describing the strategy without evaluating it, or by evaluating it in general terms rather than in relation to the specific situation.
High-scoring responses followed a clear structure. They identified the coping strategy, explained how it functions, and then judged its effectiveness for that particular stressor. Crucially, they justified the judgement by linking the strategy to the demands of the situation. Lower-scoring responses often stopped after explanation, or asserted effectiveness without explaining why.
This question illustrates a recurring issue in Psychology exams. Evaluation is not a separate paragraph or an optional add-on. It is a judgement that must be explained and justified.
Question 2b: long-term potentiation and observational learning
This question asked students to explain how long-term potentiation supports the retention stage of observational learning. According to the Examiner’s Report, many students were able to define long-term potentiation but did not explain how it operated in the context of the learning process described.
High-scoring responses explained that repeated observation leads to repeated activation of specific neural pathways, which strengthens synaptic connections through long-term potentiation. This synaptic strengthening supports the formation of a mental representation of the observed behaviour, allowing it to be stored in long-term memory.
Lower-scoring responses often used vague phrases such as visual memory or memory trace, or they described observational learning without explaining the neural mechanism involved. These responses showed familiarity with the topic but did not meet the explanatory demand of the question.
This question highlights how VCAA distinguishes between descriptive knowledge and mechanistic understanding.
Question 4: experimental design and sampling
Several parts of Question 4 assessed students’ understanding of experimental design, particularly population and sampling. The Examiner’s Report notes that many students incorrectly identified the population as all participants involved in the study, rather than the broader group the researchers intended to generalise their findings to.
Full-mark responses correctly linked the population to the research aim, not to participation status. Students who failed to make this distinction demonstrated a misunderstanding of how population and sample differ conceptually.
Another part of the question required students to comment on sampling method or error. Many students named a relevant issue but did not explain its impact on the results. For example, students might state that the sample was biased without explaining how that bias would limit generalisability or affect conclusions. These responses were capped because they lacked causal explanation.
This question shows that simply naming a concept is not sufficient. Students must explain why it matters in context.
Question 6: mindfulness meditation and cortisol levels
In this extended-response question, students were asked to analyse data showing cortisol levels over time and relate these changes to mindfulness meditation. The Examiner’s Report indicates that many students defined mindfulness meditation accurately but failed to connect it to the data presented.
High-scoring responses explicitly referenced changes in cortisol levels at different time points and explained how mindfulness practice could lead to reduced physiological stress responses over time. Students who ignored the data and wrote only theoretical explanations could not access full marks.
Another part of this question required justification of why mindfulness meditation was an appropriate independent variable. Many students argued effectiveness rather than suitability. The Examiner’s Report clarifies that students needed to justify the choice in terms of experimental control and alignment with the construct being measured, not outcomes.
This question illustrates how extended responses still demand precise alignment with the task. Length alone did not compensate for misinterpretation.
What these questions reveal about the 2023 exam
Taken together, these questions show that the 2023 Psychology exam rewarded students who could read carefully, categorise accurately, and explain mechanisms rather than recounting definitions. Students lost marks when they assumed relevance was enough, or when they treated evaluation and explanation as interchangeable.
The Examiner’s Report consistently reinforces the same message. Marks were not lost because students lacked knowledge. They were lost because students did not use that knowledge in the way the question required.