IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

Although the Dual Processing Model is described accurately, the connection to the specific variables could be deepened by explicitly stating how System II might also influence price judgments.

The aim statement clearly specifies investigating effort and time spent in art quality judgments, establishing a focused research question. Well done linking effort directly to the cognitive process under study.

The list bullets identify IV and DV but lack operational precision. Rephrase the hypothesis in a single statement specifying levels (4 h vs. 26 h) and price estimate scale.

Relevance is well justified by highlighting a new demographic (staff vs. art enthusiasts) and practical decision-making implications. This effectively explains why the investigation matters.

The null hypothesis is stated correctly but could be improved by explicitly naming the IV and DV to mirror the research hypothesis format.

The research hypothesis is directional and operationalises the IV levels and DV estimates effectively. Good alignment with a one-tailed prediction.

The procedure description cuts off mid-sentence (“showing the”). Complete this to ensure the steps are fully traceable.

Your design rationale explains avoiding demand characteristics effectively, but clarify what is meant by “internalize the differing hours” to strengthen reader understanding.

Convenience sampling is described and the demographic justified. Consider adding how sample size (n=20) was determined for adequate power.

Participant characteristics are detailed (gender balance, art familiarity). Good explanation of choice; could mention how age diversity supports generalizability.

The materials rationale explains painting choice to avoid prior bias. Consider adding how price options were derived statistically (e.g., ± X%).

Controls are clearly outlined and justified (empty room, no sharing). Well-linked to internal validity concerns.

The summary table correctly presents median and IQR by condition. However, report sample size (n=10) and mean if mentioned in the text.

Text describes mean values not shown in the table; this inconsistency should be resolved by either adding mean in the table or removing it from text.

The test result (U=49, p=0.48405) is interpreted correctly. For fuller reporting, include the exact z-score and effect size.

Selection of a one-tailed Mann–Whitney U test is appropriate given the directional hypothesis and ordinal data. Good statistical choice.

The bar chart effectively visualizes median differences and addresses the hypothesis, but error bars or boxplots would better illustrate dispersion.

Strengths and limitations are identified under “Design” but could be better separated and explicitly linked to hypothesis validity.

The evaluation summary restates results but lacks deeper discussion of why System 1 heuristics may not have emerged in staff participants.

The discussion contrasts findings with Kruger et al. (2004) but would benefit from examining alternative explanations or demographic effects.

Procedure strength: individual sessions reduce social influence. Consider scripting all instructions to avoid leading-word variations.

Sampling modification to include other schools is relevant; strengthen by specifying how you would recruit and balance demographics.

Modification suggestion to implement a matched-pairs design is well linked to limitation of art knowledge variability. Excellent justification.

The modification to withhold painting year is well justified; consider also controlling for other contextual cues like perceived prestige.

The conclusion restates medians and null outcome but should include theoretical implications for heuristics and future research directions.