IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

The explanation of relevance begins but is cut off; ensure the link between anchoring and adolescents’ cognitive development is fully articulated.

The description of dual-process theory (System 1 vs System 2) is accurate, detailed, and well connected to heuristics and biases.

The rationale for studying order effects in multiplication estimations is clear, but the relevance paragraph could be extended to consider real-world decision contexts.

The independent and dependent variables are operationalized, but clarify that the “anchor” is the first factor shown, not the entire multiplication.

The alternative hypothesis contains a wording slip and contradicts the earlier rationale; review and correct the direction and wording of H1.

Including a brief implication or application in the conclusion would strengthen the takeaway beyond restating findings.

The choice of an independent-measures design is explained, but consider discussing alternative designs (e.g., repeated-measures) and their trade-offs.

Sampling characteristics are well described, but the justification does not address potential bias from opportunity sampling.

The control of environmental variables and standardized instructions supports internal validity; consider also controlling time pressure explicitly.

The control paragraph is strong in detailing how room, time, and instructions were standardized, which enhances internal validity.

Descriptive statistics table is clear, but given skewed estimates, including medians or robust measures would give a fuller picture.

The bar graph addresses the hypothesis, but the y-axis scale exaggerates effects and lacks error bars; adjust for clarity and accuracy.

Using mean despite clear outliers warrants justification; consider reporting medians or trimming extreme values for robust analysis.

Findings are interpreted with regard to data and linked to hypothesis and dual-process theory, satisfying strong interpretation criteria.

The choice of Mann–Whitney U is appropriate for non-normal independent data, demonstrating sound statistical reasoning.

P-value interpretation correctly links statistical significance to theory, reinforcing the anchoring effect under System 1.

An effect-size measure is missing; include an appropriate index (e.g., r for Mann-Whitney) to complement p-values.

Discussion references the dual-process model, but should engage alternative explanations or wider literature for deeper critical evaluation.

Strengths and limitations are relevant but lack a hierarchy of importance; consider prioritizing limitations tied to the hypothesis.

Proposed modifications link to limitations, but require more practical detail (e.g., sample sizes, logistics) to be fully justified.

Future modifications mention matching on math ability; consider specifying diagnostic measures and pairing criteria.

The suggestion to increase ecological validity via a purchase context is appropriate; specify how stimuli would be standardized.