IB Psychology SL Internal Assessment Example

The title clearly articulates the investigation topic and level, immediately orienting the reader to the focus on anchoring bias in decision-making.

The description of Tversky & Kahneman’s original study is cut off mid-sentence, leaving the descending condition incomplete. Ensure the full procedure is clearly stated.

Referencing Attwood et al. (2004) on ergonomics is not directly relevant to decision-making heuristics. Consider replacing with a cognitive psychology source focused on judgment under uncertainty.

While the anchoring bias definition is sound, you could explicitly link it to your research aim here to reinforce the connection between theory and your manipulation.

The Dual Process Theory description is accurate but could be strengthened by briefly contrasting with competing models or other heuristics to deepen theoretical context.

At the start of the Introduction, explicitly state the investigation aim and its relevance to anchoring bias theory to orient readers immediately.

The Independent Variable is clearly defined and operationalised as the order of the multiplication sequence.

When stating your replication aim, briefly explain how your investigation extends or differs from the original work to highlight its contribution.

This paragraph concisely restates the original study’s method and findings, providing a solid rationale for replication.

Typographical error: replace “conditional” with “condition” in the research hypothesis to ensure precision.

The Dependent Variable is well operationalised as the numerical estimate provided under each condition.

Present the null hypothesis using LaTeX formatting (e.g., $H_0$) to maintain typographical consistency.

The sampling description ends abruptly and appears incomplete. Ensure the full rationale for opportunity sampling is provided.

The independent-measures design is well explained, including its benefits for internal validity. This enhances the clarity of your research design.

Control variables are justified with respect to System 1 processing and cheating prevention, showing clear methodological reasoning.

List your materials with brief justifications (e.g., why participant-supplied pencils could affect performance) to clarify their choice and role.

Participant demographics (age range, gender balance, language proficiency) are thoroughly detailed, reinforcing the credibility of your sample description.

Expand on how your debrief (Appendix B) addresses potential deception, including timing and content, to strengthen ethical transparency.

Summarize the purpose of sharing raw data in Appendix C by noting key patterns or outliers to guide readers before they view the appendix.

The caption for Table 1 is concise and informative, correctly identifying measures and conditions.

Standard deviations are disproportionately large relative to means, suggesting possible outlier influence or calculation error. Re-check and consider trimming extreme values.

Interpretation of descriptive statistics explicitly links differences to the directional hypothesis, demonstrating strong integration of results and aim.

The graph choice is appropriate, but axis scales and tick labels are missing. Add numerical scales to improve interpretability.

The transition to inferential statistics could be smoother. Consider adding a brief summary sentence bridging descriptive findings and test selection.

The caption describing the figure lacks a figure number. Add “Figure 1:” before the title to conform to standard presentation.

Include an effect-size measure (e.g., $r$) alongside the p-value to provide insight into the magnitude of the anchoring effect.

Selecting a Mann-Whitney U Test for non-parametric independent samples is well justified, reflecting appropriate statistical reasoning.

While modifications are proposed, explicitly link each suggestion (e.g., matched-pairs design) to the corresponding limitation to strengthen justification.

Discussion effectively links findings to Dual Process Theory, but could be enriched by acknowledging alternative cognitive biases influencing numerical estimates.

Identifying the mathematics-ability confound and proposing a matched-pairs design shows insightful evaluation and justified modification.