AP Psychology New FRQs: How to Solve the AAQ and EBQ

The AP Psychology test has to Free Response Questions now, AAQ (Article Analysis Question) and the EBQ (Evidence Based Question). In the AAQ, you’ll be given one example of a study, and are asked to examine it for its Psychological concepts and its validity. We’ve previously written how to answer the AP Psychology AAQ here. But what about the EBQ?

How to answer the AP Psychology EBQ

You may have come across the acronym SODA when describing how to answer the AP Psych FRQs: Space (provide yourself enough space to answer), Order (answer the question in order) define (define key terms related to the study) and Apply (apply those key terms to the FRQ). Really, Define and Apply are the only important parts… SO, duh? In an EBQ, you’ll be given three articles on Psychology, and asked to provide a claim. In other words, this is like an AAQ, but with three sources to analyze, and you are making a claim based on all the evidence together. Imagine you are a psychological researcher, and three studies cross your desk. What would be a psychological claim you could make based on this evidence? That’s the heart of the EBQ.

We’ll walk you through the free sample EBQ you can download here, but first, let’s make it simpler to understand with non-psychological terms:

Imagine you read three articles in a newspaper: one says that athletes who ate hamburgers the night before a weight lifting competition performed, on average, better than those who only ate pasta (but that those who ate rice and beans performed comparatively similar to those who ate hamburgers); another article states that students who recently became vegan are given excusal from the nurse from PE class at a higher rate than average; a third article compare rates of skeletal muscle injuries between two countries and finds higher rates of injury in the country that has a prohibition against eating cows. What would you conclude? Probably, you would state something to the effect that protein is an important function in physical health and performance, but that it doesn’t need to be meat based (the rice and beans group performed comparitively to the hamburger group). That’s essentially what you are doing in an EBQ: Finding the common evidence, and proposing a claim based on it. Now, let’s walk you through the sample EBQ (but write your answer down first before moving on!)

Solving the EBQ

Right away, we can see that these articles are about group dynamics from Unit 4: Social Psychology, so we want to define terms. We can see potential arguments based on: in-group/out-group, superordinate goal, out-group homogeneity, social influence theory, group polarization. What do those terms mean? Define them.

Now apply it to the study: In Article 1, we can see that different people, when placed together, show clear in-group bias. In-group bias is a tendency to assume that members of your own group are better than others, and to favor your own group compared to others; we see this because both the red and yellow group gave around 30% of resources to their own groups, and around 10% of resources to the other (a 3:1 ratio). A superordinate goal is a goal shared by common members of a group that were not in place before, causing members to act cooperatively toward that end; the article states stereotypes don’t occur, so we don’t see out-group homogeneity. The reason given was the groups have different political goals. We’ll come back to that “different goals” aspect for our final answer in the next section.

Furthermore, we can see group polarization occur from Article 2, which is a tendency for people’s opinions toward a subject to become more extreme when placed in a group. We only need two pieces of evidence from the articles, so we can even ignore article 3 if we are short on time.

While we don’t need to use all three articles if we are short on time, Article 3 shows us that individuals are more likely to donate to a cause if they are able to choose who it goes to (double), and are more likely to donate to a specific college, showing again that there is an ingroup bias with people favoring giving resources to groups they were a part of; however, it shows that even if they don’t give to their own group, just being given the option to increases donation amounts.

Therefore, based on these articles, we could make the claim that to ensure equitable distribution of resources and increase contributions in groups, it is important to make people feel that they are part of a common group based on the principles of group polarization (article 2), in-group bias (article 1), and prevent out-group bias and stereotypes (article 1 and 3). We could propose a study about how creation of superordinate goals might diminish these effects in our final answer.

EBQ Answer

How to answer the EBQ on the AP Psychology Test

Write your answer using the CERER format:

Part A – Claim (1 Point)

Lack of a superordinate goal between groups (a goal shared between groups) leads to out-group discrimination, as clear in-group bias exists causing members to view those within their group more favorably than those in the out-group. These biases are likely to strengthen without interaction between groups, or without dissenting voices within groups, due to group polarization, the likelihood for members of a group’s views to become more extreme as they interact.

Part B – Evidence & Reasoning

Part B.i. – Evidence (1 Point)

Superordinate Goals and In-Group Bias (Article 1):
Abbink & Harris (2019) found that individuals favor their in-group, allocating about 30% of resources to their own group while only giving 10% to an out-group. The study attributed this bias to the groups having conflicting political goals, demonstrating that the lack of a shared objective fosters division and discrimination.

Part B.ii. – Reasoning (2 Points)

This aligns with Social Identity Theory, which states that individuals categorize themselves into groups to enhance their self-esteem, often leading to favoritism toward the in-group and discrimination against out-groups. The presence of a superordinate goal can override these biases by creating a new, collective identity that encourages cooperation. If groups recognize a mutual benefit, they are more likely to allocate resources more fairly, reducing intergroup conflict.

Part C – Evidence & Reasoning

Part C.i. – Evidence (1 Point)

Group Polarization (Article 2):
Sunstein (1999) found that individuals tend to adopt more extreme positions when surrounded by like-minded individuals, reinforcing ingroup bias. Without intervention, groups can become increasingly entrenched in their beliefs, worsening favoritism and discrimination. Introduction of members who disagree with a groups opinion can reduce group polarization and in-group bias.

Part C.ii. – Reasoning (2 Points)

Group polarization suggests that without external influence, existing divisions intensify over time.; however, research indicates that if at least two members within a majority group disagree with the prevailing opinion, polarization is reduced by 13.6%. If a third dissenting voice is added, polarization decreases by 31.8%, suggesting that even a small number of dissenters can significantly weaken bias.

How did your answer compare? Did you get it correct? If you need a Psychology lesson for your class:

Get Started with AP Psychology for 2024/2025

AP Psychology 2024/2025 full course bundle