An experiment on how anchoring effects can influence the estimated height of The Big Ben when participants are exposed to low (50 meters) or high (200 meters) numerical anchors.HL
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
14/22
General feedback
14/22
0
11
22
No overall summary is available for this report.
5.1·Weakness
Page 11
References display inconsistent formatting (e.g., missing italics, incomplete URLs); apply one consistent APA or Harvard style.
Criteria A: Introduction
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Investigation aim and relevance
Excellent
A.2Theory/model description and connection
Excellent
A.3Hypothesis and variables
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Clear, focused aim with real-world relevance to decision-making contexts
- Accurate description and linkage of dual-processing theory to anchoring
- Precise operationalisation of IV and DV in both hypotheses
- Minor errors in citation (misspelling of Kahneman, incorrect year)
- One sentence trails off mid-thought, indicating incomplete editing
1.1·Strength
Page 1
The aim is clearly stated with precision, directly linking numerical anchoring to estimations of Big Ben’s height, establishing a focused investigative direction.
1.2·Strength
Page 3
The dual-processing model description is clear and concise, effectively explaining System 1 and System 2 functions.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 3
Consider explicitly linking the anchoring effect to both System 1 and System 2 processing here to reinforce theoretical connections.
1.4·Weakness
Page 3
Kahneman’s name is misspelled as “Krahneman,” and the citation year for Thinking, Fast and Slow should be corrected to 2011.
1.5·Weakness
Page 3
The final sentence trails off mid-thought, indicating incomplete editing—ensure all sentences are fully formed.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 3
When discussing Strack & Mussweiler (1996), specify the sample size and procedures used in their study to contextualize your investigation.
1.7·Strength
Page 4
The practical relevance to marketing, legal judgments, and everyday decision-making is succinctly stated, strengthening the investigation’s importance.
1.8·Strength
Page 4
Both the experimental and null hypotheses correctly identify and operationalize IV and DV, showing precise hypothesis construction.
1.9·Suggestion
Page 4
The null hypothesis wording is convoluted; simplify the phrase to clearly state “no significant difference between estimates under low and high anchors.”
Criteria B: Exploration
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
B.1Research design
Excellent
B.2Sampling and participants
Excellent
B.3Variables and materials
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Well-justified choice of independent-measures design to minimize carry-over and demand characteristics
- Clear description and justification of convenience sampling and participant controls
- Explanation of controlled variables and materials in terms of minimizing confounds
- Limited discussion of ethical oversight (e.g., IRB reference)
- Overly detailed procedural list that detracts from deeper methodological reflection
2.1·Strength
Page 5
Convenience sampling from English A groups is clearly described and justified with respect to proficiency and accessibility.
2.2·Strength
Page 5
The choice of an independent-measures design is well justified, reducing carryover and demand characteristics.
2.3·Strength
Page 5
Assessing prior knowledge and learning disabilities demonstrates thoughtful control of participant-related confounds.
2.4·Suggestion
Page 5
Discuss the rationale for the choice of image without surrounding buildings in more depth to show how it isolates the anchoring effect.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 6
Ethical guidelines mention consent and debriefing, but reference to an institutional review board or ethics code would strengthen this section.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 6
The procedural list is overly detailed; consider summarizing key steps in prose to allocate word count to critical discussion.
2.7·Strength
Page 6
Removing environmental cues by showing Big Ben in isolation is a smart control to focus attention solely on the anchor.
Criteria C: Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
C.1Statistical analysis
Excellent
C.2Graphical presentation
Excellent
C.3Findings interpretation
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Accurate calculation of means, SDs, and appropriate application of Mann-Whitney U test
- Effective graphical presentation with error bars and clear labels addressing the hypothesis
- Interpretation of findings linked to the hypothesis and data patterns
- Minor labeling errors in the results table
- Over-statement of causality and lack of justification for nonparametric test choice
3.1·Weakness
Page 7
The table heading mislabels mean and standard deviation columns; ensure conditions align correctly with their statistics.
3.2·Question
Page 7
You describe the data level as interval—why was a nonparametric test chosen over a t-test?
3.3·Suggestion
Page 7
Refer explicitly to Figure 1 when interpreting descriptive statistics to guide the reader to visual data.
3.4·Strength
Page 8
The bar chart is well-constructed with clear labels and error bars, effectively illustrating group differences.
3.5·Suggestion
Page 8
Provide a stronger justification for using the Mann-Whitney U test instead of a parametric alternative, addressing data normality or scale transformation.
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
D.1Findings discussion
Excellent
D.2Strengths and limitations
Excellent
D.3Modifications
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Integration of findings with dual-processing theory and prior literature
- Clear, relevant strengths and limitations tied to validity concerns
- Modifications explicitly linked to identified limitations and justified
- Some repetition of methodological detail in the discussion
- Limited critique of alternative explanations or deeper theoretical implications
4.1·Strength
Page 9
The discussion effectively integrates findings with dual-processing theory, reinforcing conceptual coherence.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 9
The paragraph repeats methodological details; condense this section to focus on limitations and linked modifications.
4.3·Strength
Page 10
Acknowledgement of time constraints is insightful, but propose how task timing could be varied experimentally.
4.4·Strength
Page 10
The strength of matching language proficiency and age range is well articulated, bolstering internal and ecological validity.