Overall Score: 14/22
IB Grade: 6
Was this exemplar helpful?
Criteria A: Introduction
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Investigation aim and relevance
Excellent
Theory/model description and connection
Excellent
Hypothesis and variables
Criteria Feedback
- Aim clearly stated and its relevance to anchoring bias and the original study is well explained.
- Theory of anchoring bias accurately defined and linked to the planned replication.
- Hypotheses are explicitly stated with independent and dependent variables operationalised.
- Minor misattribution of heuristics as “assumptions” rather than mental shortcuts.
- Incomplete citation details for the secondary source on biases in thinking.
- Small inaccuracies in historical attribution (Tversky & Kahneman vs. Tversky & Mussweiler).
Criteria B: Exploration
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research design
Excellent
Sampling and participants
Excellent
Variables and materials
Criteria Feedback
- Research design is explained, with justification for using an independent-measures approach and random allocation.
- Sampling technique and participant characteristics are described and the reasoning for choosing this sample is explained.
- Controlled variables and choice of materials are not only listed but each is justified in terms of validity and bias reduction.
- One procedural step is incompletely described, leaving ambiguity.
- Limitations of opportunity sampling (e.g., generalisability, selection bias) are not addressed.
- Additional controls (e.g., experimenter training, calibration of recording apps) could be included for greater rigor.
Criteria C: Analysis
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Statistical analysis
Excellent
Graphical presentation
Excellent
Findings interpretation
Criteria Feedback
- Appropriate use of descriptive (means, SD) and inferential (Mann–Whitney U) statistics.
- Graphical presentation directly addresses the hypothesis with correct chart choice and error bars.
- Findings are linked to the hypothesis with clear acceptance of the null and reference to descriptive trends.
- Missing sample size (n) in tables and graphs, and incomplete axis labels.
- Absence of effect size reporting and exact p-value undermines inferential clarity.
- Formatting flaws in the graph (small font, pixelation) reduce readability.
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Findings discussion
Excellent
Strengths and limitations
Excellent
Modifications
Criteria Feedback
- Limitations are identified, explained and directly linked to validity or generalisability.
- Modifications are explicitly tied to specific limitations and justified.
- Discussion of findings references background theory and related literature on anchoring plausibility.
- Deeper links between strengths/limitations and validity types (internal, external) are missing.
- No quantification of confounds (e.g., prior knowledge) to support evaluation.
- Misstatement regarding p=0.05 threshold; exact p-value should be provided for accuracy.