New syllabus · first assessment May 2027
The Psychology IA is now a research proposal - you plan an investigation for a real-life problem affecting a population. You do not write up experiment results. If your teacher still mentions a 22-mark experimental report, they are using the old model.
What are the key assessment details for the Psychology IA?
The May 2027 Psychology IA is a 24-mark research proposal with a 2,200-word maximum, assessed across four criteria.
- Format
- Research proposal (not experimental write-up)
- First assessment
- May 2027
- Word limit
- 2,200 words maximum
- Marks
- 24 (4 criteria × 6)
What is the Psychology IA word limit?
2,200 words maximum on the proposal. The data-collection tool goes in an appendix (≥5 items). Confirm exclusions in your current Psychology guide. IA word limits by subject →
What changed from the old experimental IA?
From first assessment May 2027, the Psychology IA is a research proposal rather than an experimental report with collected results.
- Old model: run a classroom experiment and report results.
- 2027 model: justify the aim, population, research methodology, data-collection design, and discussion for a study you are proposing.
- The proposal discusses potential findings and implications; it does not invent a results section for data that were never collected.
How should you structure the Psychology research proposal?
Organize the proposal around the four required parts: introduction, research methodology, data collection, and discussion.
- Introduction: focused aim/RQ, real-life problem + impact on population, two linked studies.
- Research methodology: method choice justified, sampling, procedure, ethics linked to this population.
- Data collection: tool in appendix (≥5 items), design choices explained, bias/demand characteristics addressed.
- Discussion: potential findings and their implications, plus limitations such as researcher bias where relevant - not fabricated results.
Which common traps should you avoid in the 2027 proposal?
The main Psychology IA proposal mistakes are writing as if data were collected, using generic ethics claims, and failing to connect the tool to the aim.
- Writing as if you already collected data.
- Generic ethics list not tied to your population.
- Tool in appendix with fewer than five items or no link to the aim.
- Background studies summarised with methods instead of findings linked to your proposal.
Ready-made research questions with feasibility notes: psychology IA ideas →
Psychology Internal Assessment: what criteria are configured?
This reviewed guide uses the 4-criterion, 24-mark model configured for this assessment session.
| Criterion | Name | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Introduction | 6 |
| Research Methodology | Research Methodology | 6 |
| Data Collection | Data Collection | 6 |
| Discussion | Discussion | 6 |
| Total | 24 | |
How do Psychology IA criteria work?
Each criterion describes a different part of the assessment, and its mark-band descriptors explain what evidence and reasoning earn credit.
Introduction
Introduction
What this criterion assesses
A clearly stated and focused aim or research question, a real-life problem described with its impact on the population of interest explained, and the findings and key conclusions of two pieces of relevant research explained and linked to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion A: Introduction (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: The aim or research question is stated but not clearly expressed or is too broad. The real-life problem is stated. The findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are not clearly stated and are not made relevant to the investigation, or only one piece of research is included. - 3–4: The aim or research question is clearly stated but only partially focused. The real-life problem is described, but the impact on the population of interest is not addressed. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are described and linked to the investigation, or only one is explained and linked to the investigation. - 5–6: The aim or research question is clearly stated and focused. The real-life problem is described and the impact on the population of interest is explained. Relevant findings and conclusions of two pieces of research are explained and linked to the investigation.
Common mistakes
- Aim too broad or not focused on the population of interest
- Real-life problem stated but its impact on the population never explained
- Only one background study included, or two summarized without linking them to the proposal
- Procedural details of background studies included where only findings/conclusions are needed
Research Methodology
Research Methodology
What this criterion assesses
The choice of research method (experiment, interview, observation, or survey/questionnaire) explained and justified; the procedure — sampling technique, sample characteristics, design, setting and process — explained; and relevant ethical considerations described and explicitly linked to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion B: Research methodology (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: The research method is described with errors in understanding. The procedure is described but is unclear due to errors or omissions. Ethical considerations are described but not linked to the investigation. - 3–4: The choice of research method is described. The procedure is described but lacks detail. Relevant ethical considerations are described but some are not linked to the investigation. - 5–6: The choice of research method is explained. The procedure is explained. Relevant ethical considerations are described and explicitly linked to the investigation. Note: The method must be one of: experiment (true or quasi-), interview (structured, semi-structured or focus group), observation (naturalistic or controlled, overt or covert, participant or non-participant), or survey/questionnaire. The procedure covers all planning decisions including sampling technique, sample characteristics, design (if experimental), setting and process.
Common mistakes
- Method named but the choice never justified for this aim
- Procedure missing sampling technique or sample characteristics
- Generic ethics checklist not linked to this study or population
- Vulnerable-population or sensitive-topic issues ignored where relevant
Data Collection
Data Collection
What this criterion assesses
An appropriate and effective data collection tool (e.g. questionnaire, Likert scales, observation checklist or interview schedule, with at least five items, copy in the appendix); the decisions made in creating it explained and relevant to the aim; and potential data-collection challenges (researcher bias, demand characteristics, validity…) explained and relevant to the investigation.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion C: Data collection (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour, but it contains errors. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are in limited detail or have limited relevance to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described in limited detail and/or are not relevant to the investigation. - 3–4: An appropriate data collection tool has been created to measure behaviour. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are described and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are described and relevant to the investigation. - 5–6: An appropriate and effective data collection tool to measure behaviour has been created. Decisions made when creating the data collection tool are explained and relevant to the aim or research question of the investigation. Potential challenges when collecting data are explained and relevant to the investigation. Note: The tool should contain a minimum of five items and a copy must be provided in the appendix. Potential challenges may include participant variability, practice/order effects, researcher bias, response bias, validity of the tool, controlling variables, and demand characteristics/social desirability bias.
Common mistakes
- Data collection tool missing from the appendix or under five items
- Tool doesn't actually measure the behaviour in the aim (operationalization gap)
- Design decisions listed but not explained or justified
- Challenges discussed generically (not tied to this tool and population)
Discussion
Discussion
What this criterion assesses
Potential findings described in detail with their implications for policy and/or practice explained; a discussion of how researcher bias (personal history, values, relation to participants) may affect the investigation; and one additional research method discussed with reference to how it would increase understanding of the topic.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion D: Discussion (0–6): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1–2: Potential findings of the investigation are described but the implication(s) for policy/practice are not addressed. One or more examples of researcher bias are identified. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is described, without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation. - 3–4: Potential findings of the investigation are described and the implication(s) for policy/practice are partially addressed. One or more relevant examples of researcher bias are described. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed without reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation. - 5–6: Potential findings of the investigation are described in detail and the implication(s) for policy/practice are explained. One or more relevant examples of how researcher bias may affect the investigation are discussed. The usefulness of one relevant additional research method is discussed with reference to increasing the understanding of the area of investigation.
Common mistakes
- Potential findings described but policy/practice implications skipped
- Researcher bias mentioned without connecting it to this investigation
- Additional method named but its added value never discussed
- Reflection on personal influence missing entirely
Sources & verification
Primary-source references used to verify key assessment facts on this page. Last source check: September 22, 2026.
The exact subject guide for Psychology is the authority for the task, criteria and limits. Some IB subject guides do not have a stable public URL, so this page names the configured assessment session and links the official IB update hubs instead of fabricating a direct source link.
- IB - Diploma Programme assessment and examsOfficial overview of criterion-related assessment and internal assessment in the Diploma Programme.
- IB - current curriculum updatesOfficial update hub for subject and first-assessment changes. Use it to confirm that your exam session matches the criteria shown here.
Ready to review your Psychology Research Proposal (IA)?
Use the dedicated review workflow to check your draft against the configured Psychology criteria for this assessment session.
Review Psychology draft →