.png)
Graduates
- Scored 40+ in the IB and 7s in the subjects they teach.
IB Psychology IA: 40 High-Scoring Experiment Ideas
This guide is your complete roadmap to acing the IB Psychology Internal Assessment. The IA is one of the best opportunities in the entire Diploma Programme to secure a top grade before your final exams even begin, accounting for a massive 20-25% of your final mark.
At Lanterna, our expert tutors (who are all top IB graduates) know that the secret to a 7 in the Psych IA isn't just about knowing psychology; it's about mastering the system. This guide gives you that insider knowledge.
By using this guide, you will be able to:
- Understand the IA format that applies to you, whether it’s the classic experiment or the new research proposal.
- Decode the official marking criteria to learn exactly what examiners are looking for in a Level 7 report.
- Avoid common pitfalls by mastering the non-negotiable ethical rules that can make or break your project.
- Choose a winning topic from our curated list of 40 high-yield, ethically-sound experiment ideas.
- Manage your time effectively with a strategic project timeline designed to prevent last-minute stress.
A Quick Note on the Syllabus Change
The IB is currently transitioning the format of the Psychology IA. This means there are two different types of IA you might be asked to complete. It is essential that you confirm with your teacher which format applies to your graduating year.
- The Experimental Report: This is the classic IA format. You will work in a small group to replicate a published study, collecting and analyzing your own primary data. The final write-up (1,800-2,200 words) is done individually and is marked out of 22 points. The 40 ideas in this guide are perfect for this format.
- The Research Proposal: This is the new IA format. Instead of running an experiment, you will write a detailed proposal for a hypothetical study that addresses a real-world problem. This proposal (up to 2,200 words) is marked out of 24 points and requires a brief literature review of two relevant studies. The 40 ideas in this guide are excellent starting points for developing a more complex proposal.
The following breakdown of the marking criteria is for the 22-mark Experimental Report, but the principles of clear justification and deep analysis apply to both formats.
Decoding the Marking Criteria: How to Write a Level 7 Report
Top-scoring students don't write more; they write smarter. They align every sentence with the specific demands of the IB rubric. Here’s how to do it.
Criterion A: Introduction (6 Marks)
This is where you set the stage, linking a broad psychological theory to your specific, focused experiment.
| Mark Band | Examiner Expectations |
|---|---|
| 5–6 (Excellent) | The aim is crystal clear and its relevance is justified. The background theory is explained accurately, and the link between the theory and your experiment is logical and explicit. Your Independent Variable (IV) and Dependent Variable (DV) are perfectly operationalized in your hypotheses. |
| 3–4 (Adequate) | The aim and theory are present, but the link between them is a bit vague. Variables are identified but not fully operationalized (e.g., you write "memory" instead of "number of words correctly recalled from a 20-word list"). |
| 1–2 (Limited) | The introduction is just a description with no real theory. The hypotheses are missing or incorrect. |
Lanterna's Pro Tip: Anchor your study in a theory, not just an *effect*. An average student might say they are studying the "Halo Effect." A top student will explain that they are investigating the Halo Effect as a manifestation of Schema Theory, where a single positive trait activates a positive schema that influences later judgments. This theoretical depth gives you much more to discuss in your evaluation.
Criterion B: Exploration (4 Marks)
This section is your methodological defense. You must justify every choice you made.
| Mark Band | Examiner Expectations |
|---|---|
| 3–4 (Excellent) | Your research design (e.g., independent measures) and sampling technique are explained and justified. Participant characteristics are detailed. All controlled variables are listed, with an explanation of *how* and *why* you controlled them. Materials are fully justified. |
| 1–2 (Limited) | You list *what* you did but not *why*. You state the sampling method but don't explain why it was appropriate. Controlled variables are mentioned but without explaining how they were controlled. |
Lanterna's Pro Tip: Justification is everything. If you used a repeated-measures design, explain that it was to eliminate participant variability as a confounding variable, and then explain how you used counterbalancing to control for order effects. Be specific with your controlled variables: "Time of day was controlled by testing all participants between 10:00 AM and 11:30 AM to minimize the impact of circadian rhythm fluctuations on cognitive performance."
Criterion C: Analysis (6 Marks)
This is where you present your findings with mathematical precision and clear interpretation.
| Mark Band | Examiner Expectations |
|---|---|
| 5–6 (Excellent) | Descriptive and inferential statistics are used correctly. Graphs are perfectly formatted, labeled, and clearly show the relationship between the IV and DV. You make a clear statement linking your statistical result to the support or rejection of your hypothesis. |
| 3–4 (Adequate) | Statistics are used, but there might be small errors. You might calculate the stats but fail to explain what the result actually means in the context of your hypothesis. |
| 1–2 (Limited) | Major errors in analysis. The wrong statistical test is used, graphs are mislabeled or show raw data, and there is no clear conclusion. |
Lanterna's Pro Tip: Do not put your raw data in the main body of the report; it belongs in the appendix. For your descriptive statistics, always use the mean and standard deviation (not the range). When you choose your inferential statistical test (e.g., Mann-Whitney U or Wilcoxon signed-rank), briefly justify why you chose it based on your level of data (e.g., ordinal) and your experimental design (e.g., independent measures).
Criterion D: Evaluation (6 Marks)
This is the section that separates the 6s from the 7s. It requires deep critical thinking.
| Mark Band | Examiner Expectations |
|---|---|
| 5–6 (Excellent) | Your findings are discussed in direct relation to the theory from your introduction. You identify specific strengths and limitations of your methodology and analyze their potential impact on the data. Your suggested modifications are realistic and directly solve the limitations you identified. |
| 3–4 (Adequate) | You describe your findings but don't link them back to the theory. Limitations are generic (e.g., "our sample size was small"). Modifications are vague and not clearly linked to the limitations. |
| 1–2 (Limited) | The evaluation is superficial. Findings are not discussed at all, and limitations are irrelevant. |
Lanterna's Pro Tip: Never just state that your "sample size was small." This is true for every IA and earns zero marks. Instead, pick one or two highly specific limitations and go deep. For example, perhaps the word list you used in a memory experiment contained culturally specific terms, potentially acting as a confounding variable for non-native English speakers in your sample. Then, your modification must be directly linked: "A future study should use a list of culturally neutral images instead of words to ensure the construct validity of the memory test."
The Ethical Bottom Line: Rules You Cannot Break
Violating IB ethical guidelines will result in a score of zero for your IA. There is no room for error here. You must always ensure:
- Informed Consent: Participants (and parents if they are minors) must know what they are signing up for.
- Right to Withdraw: Participants can leave at any time, for any reason, without penalty.
- Debriefing: You must explain the true aim of your study afterwards and ensure participants leave feeling good.
- Confidentiality: All data must be anonymized.
Beyond these, the IB has a list of strictly forbidden research areas for students:
- No Ingestion or Deprivation: You cannot ask participants to eat, drink (including water or caffeine), or smoke anything. You also cannot deprive them of sleep or food.
- No Highly Sensitive Topics: Avoid experiments that could cause significant psychological distress, such as those involving severe anxiety, sexuality, or addiction.
- No Deception (with few exceptions): Classic conformity studies like Asch's or obedience studies like Milgram's are banned because they rely on heavy deception and cause distress. Minor, harmless deception may be allowed but must be approved by your teacher.
- No Animal Research.
40 High-Scoring Psychology IA Ideas
Here is our curated list of 40 ethically-sound, high-yield ideas. They are simple enough to conduct in a school setting but are grounded in robust psychological theory.
The Cognitive Approach
Focuses on mental processes like memory, thinking, and decision-making. These are often the easiest to control and produce clean, quantitative data.
| ID | Core Theory & Original Study Paradigm | Independent Variable (IV) | Dependent Variable (DV) | Lanterna's Pro Tip |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Misinformation Effect (Loftus & Palmer) | Emotional intensity of the leading verb in a questionnaire (e.g., "smashed" vs. "contacted"). | Participant's estimated speed of the vehicle in a neutral video clip. | Ensure the video contains no graphic content to comply with ethical guidelines on protecting participants from harm. |
| 2 | Schema Theory (False Memory) (Loftus & Palmer) | Presence of a leading question suggesting a false detail (e.g., "Did you see *the* broken glass?"). | Participant's binary (Yes/No) recall of the non-existent detail. | Use a Chi-Square test for analysis, as the data you collect is categorical (nominal). |
| 3 | Dual-Processing / Interference (Stroop) | Congruency of text color and word meaning (Congruent vs. Incongruent). | Time taken (in seconds) to successfully read the list of colors. | This is a classic repeated-measures design. Make sure you use counterbalancing to control for order effects. |
| 4 | Duration of Short-Term Memory (Peterson & Peterson) | Length of the retention interval while performing a distraction task (e.g., 5 seconds vs. 15 seconds). | Number of trigrams (meaningless three-letter sets) correctly recalled. | This perfectly isolates the mechanism of rehearsal within the Multi-Store Model of Memory. |
| 5 | Serial Position Effect (Glanzer & Cunitz) | Position of words in a presented list (Beginning vs. Middle vs. End). | Frequency of successful recall for words at specific list positions. | Focus your evaluation on how the primacy effect shows transfer to LTM, while the recency effect relies on STM. |
| 6 | Levels of Processing Theory (Craik & Tulving) | Depth of encoding prompt required (Structural/Visual vs. Semantic/Meaning). | Number of words correctly recognized in an unexpected memory test. | Deep semantic processing consistently yields higher recall, providing robust data for a Mann-Whitney U test. |
| 7 | Anchoring Bias (Tversky & Kahneman) | Magnitude of the initial anchor provided (High arbitrary number vs. Low arbitrary number). | Participant's quantitative estimation of an obscure general knowledge question. | Ensure the question is something people won't know the answer to, preventing prior knowledge from being a confounding variable. |
| 8 | Framing Effect (Tversky & Kahneman) | Framing of a scenario (Focus on Potential Gains vs. Focus on Potential Losses). | Participant's choice between a guaranteed outcome and a risky gamble. | Make the scenario relevant to students (e.g., gaining vs. losing IB marks) to increase engagement. |
| 9 | Schema Activation & Context (Bransford & Johnson) | Timing of contextual information (Contextual image provided *before* audio vs. *no context*). | Number of specific details accurately recalled from an ambiguous audio passage. | Excellent for demonstrating how schemas act as frameworks for encoding new information. |
| 10 | Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch) | Modality of a concurrent interference task (Verbal suppression vs. Spatial tapping). | Accuracy on a simultaneous visual memory tracking task. | Allows for a deep evaluation of the theoretical separation between the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad. |
| 11 | Cognitive Disfluency (Alter et al.) | Typographical font legibility (Easy-to-read font vs. Difficult-to-read font). | Score on a standardized Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). | Shows how difficult fonts force us from intuitive thinking (System 1) to analytical thinking (System 2). |
| 12 | Availability Heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman) | Familiarity of listed names (List of famous males/obscure females vs. obscure males/famous females). | Participant's judgment of whether the list contained more males or females. | Tests how easily retrievable information biases our judgments of frequency. |
| 13 | Effort Heuristic (Kruger et al.) | Stated time taken to create an artwork (e.g., "4 hours" vs. "40 hours"). | Participant's rating of the artwork's quality and monetary value. | Highlights cognitive biases in how we perceive value. Easily executed via digital surveys and highly ethical. |
| 14 | Generation Effect (Slamecka & Graf) | Method of learning (Reading a completed word pair vs. Generating the missing letter of a pair). | Recall accuracy of the target words in a subsequent test. | Self-generated information requires deeper processing, which predictably increases memory retention. |
| 15 | Spacing Effect (Kahana & Howard) | Presentation schedule of stimuli (Massed, back-to-back presentation vs. Spaced presentation). | Total number of items successfully recalled. | Provides strong practical implications for study habits, which is great for your evaluation section. |
The Sociocultural Approach
Examines how our social environment and culture influence behavior. Be extra careful with ethics here to avoid causing any distress or peer pressure.
| ID | Core Theory & Original Study Paradigm | Independent Variable (IV) | Dependent Variable (DV) | Lanterna's Pro Tip |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Social Identity Theory (Tajfel) | In-group vs. Out-group status (established via an arbitrary preference task, e.g., estimating dots). | Allocation of fictional points to anonymous group members. | This is the "minimal group paradigm." It's perfectly ethical as it avoids real-world prejudices while proving in-group favoritism. |
| 17 | Illusory Correlation (Hamilton & Gifford) | Group membership proportion in a descriptive text (Majority Group A vs. Minority Group B). | Attribution of negative or positive traits to specific group members. | Directly links a cognitive bias to the sociocultural formation of stereotypes. |
| 18 | Stereotype Threat (Steele & Aronson) | Task instruction framing (Described as a "test of intelligence" vs. "a general problem-solving task"). | Performance score on a complex reasoning test. | Handle this with extreme care. The "threat" must be mild, and you must debrief participants thoroughly to prevent any lasting self-doubt. |
| 19 | Halo Effect (Nisbett & Wilson) | Perceived warmth of a fictional instructor in a brief bio (Warm/Friendly vs. Cold/Aloof). | Participant ratings of the instructor's unrelated attributes (e.g., appearance, accent). | Clearly demonstrates how one trait can create a "halo" that influences judgments of other unrelated traits. |
| 20 | Bystander Effect (Latané & Darley) | Number of perceived bystanders (Participant believes they are alone vs. in a group). | Time taken for the participant to report a minor, non-emergency issue (e.g., a software glitch). | To stay ethical, *avoid staged emergencies*. Use a harmless event to test the diffusion of responsibility safely. |
| 21 | Social Facilitation (Zajonc) | Social environment (Performing a simple task alone vs. in front of a small audience). | Speed and accuracy on a simple, well-practiced task. | Ensure the audience is supportive and non-judgmental to minimize participant anxiety. |
| 22 | Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon (Freedman & Fraser) | Initial request sequence (A small initial request before a large request vs. Large request only). | Compliance rate for the final, larger request. | Highly effective for testing compliance within a school setting (e.g., asking to sign a petition, then asking to volunteer). |
| 23 | Door-in-the-Face Technique (Cialdini et al.) | Initial request sequence (An extreme request that is refused, followed by a moderate request vs. Moderate request only). | Compliance rate for the moderate, target request. | Relies on the principle of reciprocal concession. Easy to operationalize using requests for school events. |
| 24 | Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson) | Participant's expectation of task difficulty (Told the task is "easy" vs. "highly advanced"). | Persistence time or success rate on a set of standardized anagram puzzles. | Shows how our internalized expectations can directly alter our performance. |
| 25 | Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura) | Observation of a model's behavior (Model demonstrates prosocial behavior vs. No model observed). | Frequency of prosocial choices made by the participant in a subsequent simulation. | Adapt the Bobo doll concept by modeling positive behaviors like charity or cooperation. Never model aggression. |
| 26 | Cultural Dimensions (Priming) (Berry) | Cultural mindset priming (Reading a passage emphasizing individualistic vs. collectivist values). | Rate of conformity to a simulated group norm on a subsequent preference questionnaire. | This is a clever way to test cultural dimensions without needing a cross-cultural sample. |
| 27 | Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith) | Justification for effort (High simulated reward vs. Low simulated reward for a boring task). | Participant's self-reported enjoyment of the deliberately tedious task. | You must use hypothetical rewards (e.g., house points) to avoid ethical issues with real compensation. |
| 28 | The Illusion of Control (Langer) | Participant agency (Choosing their own lottery ticket vs. Being handed a random ticket). | The monetary value the participant demands to sell the ticket back. | Highlights the intersection of social agency and cognitive biases in risk-taking. |
| 29 | In-Group Linguistic Bias (Maass et al.) | Group membership of a target performing a negative action (In-group vs. Out-group member). | Abstraction level of the language used by participants to describe the behavior. | Analyzes how we subconsciously use language differently to protect our in-group members. |
| 30 | Note-taking Methods (Mueller & Oppenheimer) | Method of recording lecture information (Handwriting notes vs. Typing notes). | Score on a subsequent factual and conceptual recall test. | Highly relevant to the school environment and tests how technology impacts depth of processing. |
The Biological Approach
Investigates the physiological basis of behavior. Since you can't use brain scanners or blood tests, these IAs use clever proxies to explore biological concepts.
| ID | Core Theory & Original Study Paradigm | Independent Variable (IV) | Dependent Variable (DV) | Lanterna's Pro Tip |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Evolutionary Psychology (Disgust) (Curtis et al.) | Salience of disease threat in images (Images depicting disease threats vs. Visually similar but non-threatening images). | Self-reported disgust rating on a Likert scale. | Safely tests evolutionary protection mechanisms against pathogens without any actual biological risk. |
| 32 | Spatial Memory & Gender (Evolutionary) (Silverman & Eals) | Biological sex of the participant (Male vs. Female). | Accuracy in recalling the location of objects within a complex visual array. | Explores the evolutionary hunter-gatherer hypothesis of spatial memory. This is a quasi-experiment. |
| 33 | Neuroplasticity & Screen Time (Carrier et al.) | Duration of immediate prior screen exposure (e.g., 5 mins vs. 30 mins of a high-stimulation app). | Performance on an immediate working memory capacity test (e.g., digit span). | Tests environmental impacts on brain function and leverages technology students already use. |
| 34 | Arousal and Memory Encoding (McGaugh & Cahill) | Emotional arousal level of a narrative accompanying a slide show (Neutral vs. Emotionally engaging). | Detail retention in a surprise recall test. | Uses emotional arousal as a proxy for adrenaline and amygdala activation, cleverly bypassing the ban on ingestion. |
| 35 | Circadian Rhythms & Cognition | Time of day the cognitive task is administered (Morning peak vs. Mid-afternoon dip). | Reaction time and accuracy on a sustained attention task. | Correlates biological clock fluctuations with cognitive performance without requiring unethical sleep deprivation. |
| 36 | The Mozart Effect (Rauscher et al.) | Presence of auditory neural stimulation (Listening to complex classical music vs. Silence). | Spatial reasoning task performance (e.g., mental paper-folding tests). | Safely manipulates the biological environment (auditory cortex stimulation) to observe behavioral output. |
| 37 | Physical Arousal & Focus | Baseline physiological arousal (Resting state vs. Post-mild cardiovascular exercise). | Performance on a focused attention or reaction-time task. | Uses mild, safe physical exertion (like jumping jacks) to naturally elevate heart rate as a proxy for hormone release. |
| 38 | Facial Symmetry & Preference (Wedekind - Modified) | Degree of facial symmetry in presented digital portraits (Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical). | Participant's rating of trustworthiness and attractiveness. | A great way to test evolutionary mating preferences without using the invasive "sweaty t-shirt" study methodology. |
| 39 | Environmental Noise & Neural Interference | Background auditory environment (White noise vs. Intermittent, unpredictable noise). | Reading comprehension and retention speed. | Tests how biological sensory overload disrupts higher-order cortical processing. |
| 40 | Posture and Hormonal Proxies (Carney, Cuddy, & Yap) | Physical posture maintained prior to a task (Expansive "Power" posture vs. Contracted posture). | Self-reported feelings of risk tolerance and confidence in a simulation. | Tests the physiological feedback loop of the body on the brain, bypassing actual hormone measurement. |
IA, EE, and TOK: Making the Connections
- IA vs. Extended Essay: You cannot submit the same research for both. The IA is a small-scale, 2,200-word empirical report. A Psychology EE is a 4,000-word literature review that analyzes and evaluates existing research on a much broader scale. Trying to expand your IA into an EE is a common mistake that almost always results in a low-scoring essay.
- Synergy with TOK: Your IA experience is a goldmine for your TOK essays and exhibitions. It provides personal, concrete examples for exploring questions in the Human Sciences, such as: *How do we measure something unobservable, like memory?* or *To what extent does the act of observation change human behavior?*
Your Strategic IA Timeline
Poor time management is the number one enemy of a good IA. Follow this phased approach to stay on track and avoid clashing with other major deadlines.
| Project Phase | Optimal Timing | Key Actions |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Conceptualization | Towards the end of DP1 | Choose your topic, refine your methodology, and get formal approval from your teacher before the summer break. |
| Phase 2: Data Collection | Start of DP2 | Run a small pilot test to iron out any issues with your materials. Then, execute the full experiment and secure your raw data. |
| Phase 3: Analysis & First Draft | Mid-first term of DP2 | Draft your Introduction and Exploration. Calculate all your statistics and create your graphs. Write a full first draft to get comprehensive teacher feedback. |
| Phase 4: Evaluation & Revision | Start of second term of DP2 | Write the crucial Evaluation section. Carefully incorporate your teacher's feedback, focusing on that critical link between limitations and modifications. |
| Phase 5: Final Polish | 4-6 weeks before final school deadline | Finalize all formatting, check the word count, assemble your appendices (consent form, raw data, debriefing notes), and submit with confidence. |
