Early 2026 AP Psychology worked solutions
Early Solutions to the 2026 AP Psychology FRQs | Step by Step
Work through the Article Analysis Question and Evidence-Based Question with the research design, statistics, source evidence, psychological terminology, reasoning, limitations, and final wording made explicit.
Important: These are early, unofficial solutions based on the uploaded independent study guide. They are not official College Board scoring guidelines. The page preserves the guide's evidence and conclusions and uses “supports” rather than “proves” where the mechanism remains uncertain.
What the 2026 AP Psychology FRQs test
For broader review, use the verified AP Psychology cheatsheet or browse the AP Psychology FRQ archive.
Question 1 • Article Analysis Question
FRQ 1: Phone Accessibility and Anxiety
Research methods and social behavior| Study element | What the guide reports | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Research method | Laboratory experiment | Phone accessibility was manipulated and participants were randomly assigned. |
| Participants | 128 psychology students at one midsize private U.S. university | The narrow convenience sample limits generalizability. |
| Independent variable | Phone Present on the table versus Phone Absent in a locked box | This is the factor deliberately changed by the researchers. |
| Common experience | Both groups heard their phones ring two minutes into the waiting period and were told not to answer. | Both groups experienced the ring; accessibility differed. |
| Dependent variable | Score on a 20-item anxiety survey using a 4-point Likert scale | This was the measured outcome; higher scores meant greater anxiety. |
| Key result | Phone Absent \(M=41.39\); Phone Present \(M=31.00\) | The 10.39-point difference was statistically significant. |
| Ethical protections | Independent review, informed consent, right to withdraw, and debriefing about deception | These procedures protected participants and explained the study afterward. |
Part A: Identify the research method
Look for manipulation.
The researchers changed whether the phone remained visible on the table or was inaccessible in a locked box.
Look for random assignment.
Participants were randomly assigned to the Phone Present or Phone Absent condition.
Classify the method.
Manipulating an independent variable and randomly assigning participants identifies an experiment. Because the procedure occurred in a controlled setting, the guide specifies a laboratory experiment.
Part B: State the operational definition of anxiety
Name the measure.
At the end of the waiting period, participants completed a 20-item anxiety survey.
Include the response format.
Each statement was rated on a 4-point Likert scale. The guide gives “I am tense” and “I am worried” as example statements.
Explain the score direction.
A higher total score represented greater anxiety.
Part C: Interpret the statistically significant mean difference
Compare the means.
\[41.39-31.00=10.39\text{ points}.\]The Phone Absent group reported the higher mean anxiety score.
Interpret significance.
The statistically significant difference is unlikely to be explained only by chance variation under the null hypothesis of no true group difference.
Avoid conclusions the statistic does not support.
Significance does not mean every Phone Absent participant was more anxious. It also does not establish that the effect was practically large, clinically important, or generalizable to everyone.
Part D: Identify and apply one ethical guideline
Use debriefing as the clearest choice.
The procedure involved deception because participants were led to believe that their paragraph about a personal flaw would be evaluated.
Apply the guideline.
After the survey, the researchers revealed that no one had evaluated the paragraph and explained why the deception had been necessary.
| Guideline | Study-specific application |
|---|---|
| Independent review | A university-affiliated committee independent of the researcher reviewed the protocol for participant rights and safety. |
| Informed consent | Participants received information about the purpose and procedures and agreed after learning what participation involved. |
| Right to withdraw | Participants were told they could leave at any time without consequence. |
| Debriefing | Researchers disclosed the deception and explained its purpose after the study. |
Part E: Evaluate generalizability
Identify the sampled population.
All 128 participants were psychology students from one midsize private university in the United States.
Check representativeness.
The sample was 72.7% female, and 83.6% were first- or second-year students.
State a cautious boundary.
The result may apply to students similar to this sample, but the sample does not justify confident generalization to all college students, all adults, or people in other countries and settings.
Separate assignment from sampling.
Random assignment helps make the two conditions comparable and supports causal inference. It does not turn a one-university convenience sample into a representative national sample.
Part F: Connect the finding to the FOMO explanation
Select the relevant result.
The group that heard the call but could not access the phone reported significantly higher anxiety than the group whose phones remained visible.
Link the result to FOMO.
Being unable to check the call could create concern about missing an important communication or social connection, which is consistent with fear of missing out.
Preserve the alternative explanations.
FOMO was not directly measured or manipulated separately. Attachment to the device or anxiety caused by physical restriction could also account for the result.
Question 2 • Evidence-Based Question
FRQ 2: What Strengthens Retrieval?
Learning, cognition, and evidence-based argumentation| Source | Design | Key result | Best use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source 1 | Medical students learned suturing in one 8-hour session or four weekly 2-hour sessions. | One month later, spaced group \(M=31.60\) and massed group \(M=27.63\); the difference was statistically significant. | Direct support for the spacing effect and distributed practice. |
| Source 2 | Seventh graders read four nonrepeated science articles in one session or in two sessions one week apart. | The massed group had higher means. The difference was significant immediately after learning but not after one week. | A boundary condition: spacing alone does not guarantee a benefit when material is not repeated or retrieved. |
| Source 3 | Students received 23 hours over four months or one hour split into three 20-minute learning periods separated by 10-minute physical distractor periods. | The one-hour group earned \(65\%\) and the 23-hour group earned \(64\%\) five days later; the difference was not statistically significant. | Support for brief, manageable learning intervals and efficient encoding. |
Part A: Write a defensible claim
Name the helpful learning conditions.
The evidence pairing supports distributing learning across time and dividing instruction into manageable sessions.
Name the memory outcome.
The claim should connect those conditions to durable encoding, retention, and later retrieval.
Leave room for Source 2.
Source 2 shows that merely separating different, nonrepeated readings did not reliably improve delayed performance, so the claim should not say that every form of spacing works.
Part B(i): Use specific evidence from Source 1
Identify the learning schedules.
Source 1 compared the same eight-hour suturing course delivered in one session with four weekly two-hour sessions.
Report the delayed outcome.
At the one-month assessment, the spaced group had a mean of \(31.60\), while the massed group had a mean of \(27.63\).
Include statistical significance and cite.
The difference was statistically significant. The evidence sentence must identify Source 1 directly or parenthetically.
Part B(ii): Explain Source 1 with the spacing effect
Define the spacing effect.
Distributed practice generally produces stronger long-term retention than massed practice.
Apply it to the schedule.
Weekly sessions reactivated and strengthened the learned suturing procedure over time and reduced forgetting before the one-month assessment.
Connect memory to the outcome.
Because the procedural memory was more durable, participants could retrieve and perform the suturing procedure more accurately later.
Part C(i): Use additional evidence from Source 3
Describe the one-hour condition.
The one-hour instruction was divided into three 20-minute learning periods separated by 10-minute physical distractor periods.
Report the comparison.
Five days later, the one-hour group earned a mean test score of \(65\%\), and the 23-hour group earned \(64\%\).
Interpret the statistic cautiously.
The difference was not statistically significant. This does not prove the conditions were identical; it means the study did not detect a reliable difference at its significance threshold.
Part C(ii): Explain Source 3 with working-memory capacity and encoding
Define the limited-capacity system.
Working memory can actively hold and process only a limited amount of information at one time.
Apply the concept to short learning periods.
Dividing rapid instruction into 20-minute periods can reduce continuous cognitive overload and provide opportunities to encode information into long-term memory.
Connect encoding to retrieval.
Information encoded more effectively into long-term memory is more available for retrieval on the test five days later.
Complete exam-ready responses
Question 1 concise response
A. The research method was a laboratory experiment because the researchers manipulated whether participants could access their phones and randomly assigned participants to the Phone Present or Phone Absent condition.
B. Anxiety was operationally defined as each participant's score on the 20-item survey completed after the waiting period, using 4-point Likert ratings; higher scores represented greater anxiety.
C. The Phone Absent group had a mean anxiety score of \(41.39\), compared with \(31.00\) for the Phone Present group, a difference of \(10.39\) points. The statistically significant difference indicates that the higher average anxiety in the Phone Absent group is unlikely to be due to chance variation alone.
D. One ethical guideline was debriefing. After the study, the researchers disclosed that no one had evaluated the participants' paragraphs and explained why the deception was necessary.
E. The findings have limited generalizability because the 128 participants were psychology students from one midsize private U.S. university, 72.7% were female, and 83.6% were first- or second-year students. The findings may apply to similar college students, but they should not be generalized confidently to all adults or all college populations.
F. The significantly higher anxiety in the Phone Absent group supports the FOMO explanation because participants who heard a call but could not check it may have worried that they were missing an important communication or social connection. However, FOMO was not measured directly, and attachment to the physically restricted device could also explain the effect, so the result supports but does not prove that FOMO caused the anxiety.
Question 2 concise response
A. A person's ability to retrieve recently learned information is strengthened when learning is distributed across time and divided into manageable sessions because these conditions improve durable encoding and retention.
B(i). According to Source 1, participants who completed four weekly two-hour suturing sessions earned a mean score of \(31.60\) on the one-month assessment, compared with \(27.63\) for participants who completed the course in one eight-hour session, and the difference was statistically significant.
B(ii). This evidence supports the spacing effect, which predicts stronger long-term retention from distributed practice than from massed practice. Repeated practice across four weeks strengthened the memory for the suturing procedure and reduced forgetting, making the procedure easier to retrieve one month later.
C(i). Students who received one hour of biology instruction divided into three 20-minute learning periods earned a mean score of \(65\%\) five days later, which was not significantly different from the \(64\%\) mean of students who received 23 hours of instruction over four months (Source 3).
C(ii). The result can be explained by the limited capacity of working memory. Short learning periods reduce continuous overload and allow more information to be encoded into long-term memory. Better encoding makes the information more available for later retrieval, helping the one-hour group perform comparably despite much less instructional time.
Qualification: Source 2 suggests that spacing by itself is not guaranteed to help when learners receive different, nonrepeated materials and do not revisit or retrieve earlier information.
Final AP Psychology free-response checklist
- Label every response. Keep A-F and B(i)-C(ii) aligned with the prompt.
- Use term + study evidence + link. Define the psychological concept, apply a specific result, and explain why the result follows.
- Operationalize precisely. Name the 20-item survey, 4-point Likert scale, and the meaning of a higher score.
- Separate random assignment and random sampling. Assignment supports causal inference; sampling supports generalizability.
- Interpret significance carefully. “Not statistically significant” does not mean the groups were exactly equal.
- Use two different EBQ concepts. The main route uses the spacing effect and limited-capacity working memory with encoding.
- Cite the evidence sources. Include “According to Source 1” or a parenthetical source citation in the evidence sentence.
- Avoid overclaiming. Write “supports” or “is consistent with,” especially because FOMO was not directly measured.