The 2023 VCE Psychology examination marked the first full cohort assessed under the 2023–2027 Study Design. The Examiner’s Report makes it clear that the paper was not designed to surprise students with unfamiliar content. Instead, it was designed to test whether students could apply familiar psychological knowledge using scientific reasoning, precise terminology, and disciplined interpretation of scenarios and data.
Students who treated the exam as a test of recall were consistently disadvantaged. Students who treated it as a science exam, where claims must be justified by method, evidence, and framework, were consistently rewarded.
Section A: where conceptual shortcuts were exposed
Section A in 2023 was highly effective at distinguishing between students who understood psychological systems and students who relied on simplified rules or memorised summaries.
Early questions assessing conscious, unconscious, and reflexive responses revealed a recurring misconception. Many students selected responses that implied unconscious responses bypass the brain entirely. The Examiner’s Report explicitly notes that this is incorrect, as unconscious responses still involve brain structures, particularly within the brainstem. Students who had learned unconscious as meaning “not involving the brain” rather than “not involving conscious awareness” were penalised.
Stress-related questions further exposed framework confusion. In items assessing the General Adaptation Syndrome, many students selected answers incorporating terms such as appraisal, perceived threat, or coping resources. These terms belong to the Lazarus and Folkman transactional model, not to the GAS. The Examiner’s Report highlights that students must identify which theoretical model is being assessed before interpreting the question. Treating all stress models as interchangeable led to predictable errors.
Neurotransmission questions also required careful reading. In questions assessing dopamine and glutamate, students often relied on rigid classifications such as excitatory or inhibitory. The report clarifies that dopamine cannot be treated as exclusively one or the other, as its effect depends on receptor pathways and neural context. Students who understood neurotransmission as context-dependent were more likely to select the correct option.
Section A data interpretation: reading what the graph actually shows
Several Section A questions embedded content within graphs and tables. The Examiner’s Report notes that many students defaulted to surface-level description rather than analysis.
In the question comparing sleep patterns in two-year-olds and six-year-olds, many students incorrectly attributed differences in REM sleep to bedtime or total sleep duration. The graph clearly showed that total sleep time was equivalent. High-scoring students recognised that changes in ultradian cycle length necessarily affect the number of cycles per night. Students who did not attend to this structural feature of the data selected distractors that sounded intuitively plausible but were not supported by the graph.
Questions involving experimental reasoning produced similar patterns. In the theophylline rat study, many students suggested increasing sample size as a way to improve validity. The Examiner’s Report states explicitly that this is incorrect. Sample size relates to reproducibility and confidence in results, not to internal validity. Internal validity depends on control of extraneous variables and clarity of cause-and-effect relationships. This distinction was a consistent source of mark loss.
Section B short-answer questions: accuracy without alignment
Most marks in the 2023 exam were allocated to short-answer questions in Section B. The Examiner’s Report repeatedly notes that students often understood the content but failed to align their responses to the specific demands of the question.
In Question 1, which combined stress responses, coping strategies, and a spinal reflex diagram, several predictable errors occurred. In part (a), students were asked to identify one physiological response. Many instead described psychological states such as fear or anxiety. These responses were relevant to the scenario but did not meet the category specified in the question, and therefore could not be awarded marks.
In part (b), students were required to evaluate the effectiveness of a coping strategy in context. High-scoring responses first defined the strategy accurately, then explained why it was or was not effective for that specific stressor. Lower-scoring responses either described the strategy without evaluating it, or offered an evaluation without explaining the mechanism. The Examiner’s Report makes it clear that both elements were required.
The spinal reflex diagram revealed another precise error. Many students wrote that sensory neurons “travel” to motor neurons. The report clarifies that it is neural information, not neurons themselves, that is transmitted. This distinction matters because Psychology is assessed as a science, and imprecise biological language is penalised.
Extended-response questions: definition without application
Extended-response questions in the 2023 paper further reinforced the importance of application. In the mindfulness meditation and cortisol study, many students wrote accurate definitions of mindfulness meditation but failed to relate those definitions to the pattern of cortisol levels shown in the data.
The Examiner’s Report notes that responses which did not reference time points or trends in cortisol levels could not access full marks. High-scoring responses explicitly linked mindfulness practice to changes in physiological stress responses across time.
In questions asking students to justify the choice of an independent variable, many responses argued that mindfulness meditation was more effective than nutritional intake. The Examiner’s Report clarifies that this was not the task. Students were required to justify suitability in terms of experimental control, construct alignment, and baseline variability. Responses that focused on outcomes rather than design rationale were capped.
Similarly, in behaviourist questions, students often demonstrated correct understanding but failed to use required terminology. When the question specifies that responses must use the language of a particular approach, such as behaviourism, omission of key terms like antecedent, behaviour, consequence, reinforcement, or punishment limits the maximum mark available, regardless of conceptual understanding.
What the 2023 exam ultimately rewarded
The 2023 VCE Psychology exam rewarded students who consistently demonstrated three core skills. First, they identified the correct theoretical or methodological framework and remained within it. Second, they applied psychological concepts directly to the scenario or data provided, rather than relying on general explanation. Third, they matched their responses precisely to the command term and mark allocation.
The Examiner’s Report repeatedly emphasises that assessors can only reward what is written in response to the question asked. Students who wrote fluent but misaligned responses lost marks. Students who wrote less but aligned their reasoning carefully gained them.
For students preparing under the current Study Design, the 2023 exam remains an essential reference point for understanding how VCAA expects Psychology to be examined and marked.