What you'll be asked The FRQ on Friday is an Article Analysis Question (AAQ) . You read a short summary of a study (introduction, participants, method, results, discussion) and answer six labeled parts, always in this order, for 7 points :A. Identify the research method.B. State the operational definition of a variable.C. Describe what a statistic or result means.D. Identify an ethical guideline the researchers applied.E. Explain how generalizable the findings are, using evidence from the study.F. Explain how a finding supports or refutes the hypothesis (2 points : cite a specific result, then explain the connection).
Why it matters on the AP exam The AP Psychology exam has two free-response questions, and the AAQ is one of them. The other is the Evidence-Based Question. Together they're a third of your exam score. The AAQ's six tasks never change, only the study does, so the skills you practice here carry over to every unit and to May. It's also the skill behind the research and data questions in the multiple choice.
How to attack it 1. Read the six prompts first, so you know what to hunt for.2. Mark up the study as you read. Circle the conditions (the IV), box how things were measured (the operational definitions), underline who the participants were and how they were recruited, star the ethics words (consent, withdraw, debrief), and note the key numbers in the results.3. Label every part (A–F) and write complete sentences. 4. Use the study in every answer. A definition alone earns nothing. Start with “In this study…”.5. For C, say what the numbers mean : which group was higher, and whether the difference was statistically significant (unlikely to be due to chance) or not.6. For E, take a position (limited, partly, or broadly generalizable) and name specific features of the sample or task (age, location, recruitment, the one task used) that limit who the results apply to. “Small sample” on its own doesn't earn the point.7. For F, make two moves: quote a specific finding with its numbers, then explain how it connects to the hypothesis.
Practice study Food Labels and Perceived Taste A hypothetical study, written for practice and modeled on published research. It is not the study on Friday's test.
Introduction
Researchers tested the hypothesis that expectations created by a food label change how the food tastes.
Participants
Eighty high school students (ages 14–18; 44 girls and 36 boys) from two private high schools in one suburban county in Ohio responded to a flyer and received a $10 gift card. A parent of each student signed a consent form, and each student agreed to take part. Students with food allergies did not participate. Everyone was told they could stop at any time.
Method
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Everyone tasted the same vanilla yogurt. In the premium condition, the cup was labeled “Gourmet small-batch organic vanilla yogurt.” In the basic condition, it was labeled “Store-brand vanilla yogurt.” Participants rated how pleasant the yogurt tasted on a scale from 1 (very unpleasant) to 9 (very pleasant). The researchers weighed each cup before and after a 5-minute tasting period to record the grams eaten. Afterward, every participant was told that the two yogurts were identical.
Results
Condition Mean pleasantness (1–9) Mean grams eaten Premium label (n = 40) 7.2 96 Basic label (n = 40) 5.1 71
The difference in pleasantness ratings was statistically significant (p < .05). The difference in grams eaten was not (p = .21).
Discussion
The researchers concluded that the label changed how pleasant the yogurt tasted, but not reliably how much participants ate. They noted that only one food was tested and that they did not ask how hungry participants were.
Write each part in your own words before you open its scoring guide.
A. Identify the research method used in the study.
Check Part A against the scoring guide Earns it: Experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions, and the researchers manipulated the label (premium vs. basic).
Doesn't: “Correlational study,” “survey,” or “case study.”
B. State the operational definition of taste pleasantness.
Check Part B against the scoring guide Earns it: Participants' rating of how pleasant the yogurt tasted, from 1 (very unpleasant) to 9 (very pleasant).
Doesn't: “How much they liked it,” with no mention of the 1–9 rating.
C. Describe what the difference in mean grams eaten (96 vs. 71) indicates, given that it was not statistically significant.
Check Part C against the scoring guide Earns it: The premium group ate more on average, but because the difference was not statistically significant, it could be due to chance. The study can't conclude that the label changed how much people ate.
Doesn't: Restating “the premium group ate 25 more grams” without saying what that means, or ignoring that it wasn't significant.
D. Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.
Check Part D against the scoring guide Earns it (any one, tied to the study): informed consent (parents signed consent forms and students agreed); right to withdraw (they could stop at any time); debriefing (they were told afterward that the yogurts were identical); protection from harm (students with allergies were excluded).
Doesn't: “The study was ethical,” or confidentiality, which the study never mentions. Deception is not a guideline; debriefing is what makes it acceptable.
E. Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable, using specific and relevant evidence from the study.
Check Part E against the scoring guide Earns it: Limited. Everyone was 14–18, from two private schools in one suburban Ohio county, recruited by flyer and paid. Only one food was tested. The results may not apply to adults, to students in public, urban, or rural schools, or to other foods.
Doesn't: “The sample was too small” on its own (80 isn't tiny, and size alone doesn't say who the results apply to), or any claim with no evidence from the study.
F. Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the researchers' hypothesis that expectations created by a food label change how food tastes.
Check Part F against the scoring guide Point 1, cite a finding: Premium-label participants rated the yogurt as more pleasant (7.2 vs. 5.1), and the difference was statistically significant.
Point 2, explain: The yogurt was identical, so only the expectation created by the label differed. That shows top-down processing changing perceived taste, which supports the hypothesis.
Also works: The grams-eaten difference was not significant, so that finding does not support the idea that labels change behavior, only how the food is perceived.
Doesn't: Citing the numbers with no explanation, or saying “it supports the hypothesis” with no finding.
Would it earn the point? 33. Which response to Part E would earn the point?a. "The findings are not generalizable because the sample was too small." b. "The findings are generalizable because participants were randomly assigned." c. "The findings may be only partly generalizable: everyone was a 14- to 18-year-old from two private schools in one Ohio county, so the results may not apply to adults or to students in other kinds of schools." d. "The findings are generalizable because the results were statistically significant."
34. For Part F, a student wrote only: "The premium group rated the yogurt 7.2 and the basic group rated it 5.1." How many of the 2 points does this earn?a. 1: it cites a specific finding but never explains how it supports the hypothesis. b. 0: numbers from the study are not allowed. c. 2: citing the result is enough. d. 0: it should have used the grams-eaten result instead.
35. Which answer to Part A earns the point?a. "The researchers used the scientific method." b. "A case study of 80 students." c. "A survey, because participants rated the yogurt." d. "Experiment, because participants were randomly assigned to a premium-label or basic-label condition."
Clear the self-check answers in this part and try again