Student PlusFree month--days·--hours·--minutes·--seconds--D --H --M --S

Psychology · research proposal IA

IB Psychology Internal Assessment guide

Written and cross-checked by IB Diploma graduates: Alexander (41), Alejandro (40), Martina (40), Victoria (38), Martin (35), Maria (34)

Last reviewed: September 2026 · Checked against official IB guidance · Editorial policy

The IB Psychology Research Proposal (IA) is graded against 4 IB assessment criteria worth 24 marks. This guide explains the mark scheme for each criterion and what the published criteria reward at each score level at Higher Level (HL) and Standard Level (SL).

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.

At a glance

Format: Research proposal (not experimental write-up)
First assessment: May 2027
Word limit: 2,200 words maximum
Marks: 24 (4 criteria × 6)

Word count

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

Old model: run a classroom experiment and report results.
2027 model: justify aim, population, method, ethics, and anticipated findings for a study you are proposing.
Criterion B–C focus on methodology and data-collection design, not analysed results.

Proposal structure mapped to criteria

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.
Anticipated findings: plausible outcomes and implications — not fabricated results.

Common traps on the 2027 proposal

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 →

4 criteria24 marks totalSL & HL available

IB assessment criteria

Each criterion is presented independently using the configured mark-band descriptors for this subject and assessment session.

Criterion	Name	Marks
Introduction	Introduction	6
Research Methodology	Research Methodology	6
Data Collection	Data Collection	6
Discussion	Discussion	6
Total		24

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Introduction

0-6

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

0-6

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

0-6

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

0-6

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 get feedback on your Psychology Research Proposal (IA)?

Upload your draft and get criterion-by-criterion feedback using the configured Psychology criteria for this assessment session.

Get Psychology feedback →

Psychology IA ideas →Writing guide →Research question guide →IA structure guide →IA word limits →All guides →All subjects →Full rubric guide →

Stop reading about it

Upload your draft and get criterion-by-criterion feedback in minutes.

Check my draft free