Examiner's Review: May/June 2023 Psychology (9990)

The May/June 2023 series for Cambridge International A Level Psychology (9990) provided a balanced but rigorous test of candidate knowledge. This series emphasized candidates' ability to move beyond rote-learned descriptions and instead showcase active, analytical application of psychological concepts. With structured research methods questions demanding explicit contextualization and specialist options requiring both biological precision and balanced debates, the overall difficulty level sits at a solid 3.5 out of 5.

Where the Marks Are Won (and Lost)

High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves by mastering the three majors of research design and the distinct requirements of evaluation questions. In Paper 12, the 10-mark evaluation of Andrade (doodling) was a prime differentiator; top-tier answers structured their evaluation around issues (such as the named issue of independent measures design) rather than giving a disjointed study-by-study summary. In Paper 22 (Research Methods), marks were heavily concentrated in Section C (Question 10), which required designing a dream interview. Candidates who clearly defined the style of questions, the interview structure, and the content of the questions easily secured Level 3 marks. Conversely, those who drifted into designing laboratory experiments instead of the requested self-report method were heavily penalized.

Common Examiner Pitfalls and Misconceptions

The Principal Examiner reports highlight several recurrent pain points:

  • Confusion Between Results and Conclusions: Candidates frequently present numerical results when asked for a conclusion. A result is a factual statistical statement (e.g., "the mean rating for the Believers group rose by 1 point"), whereas a conclusion is a broader deduction (e.g., "it is possible to implant false memories of liking a food").
  • Circular Definitions: When defining terms like "random sampling" or "measures of spread," many students resorted to tautology (e.g., "random sampling is choosing people at random"), which score zero marks.
  • Failing to Link to Context: In Paper 22, whenever a question refers to "in this study" or presents a scenario (like Deryn's shop window observation), generic answers are capped. Specific, contextualized examples are mandatory to access the full mark range.

Strategic Revision Advice

To maximize success in future sessions, structure your preparation using the following principles:

  • Create Flashcards for Core Bullet Points: Align your flashcards directly with the syllabus sub-topics (e.g., "Anxiety disorders: explanations of phobias") to avoid describing the wrong study or theory.
  • Practice Formulaic Research Designs: Ensure you can design and justify experimental, observational, correlational, and self-report studies. For any self-report design, always specify the question type (open vs. closed with scale anchors), the structure (structured vs. semi-structured), and the delivery mode.
  • Balance Your Evaluation Essays: For Paper 3 and Paper 4 essays, present a clear, two-sided argument. Do not simply state "it is reductionist" as an automatic weakness; explain why reducing a complex disorder to biochemical mechanisms (e.g., serotonin levels in OCD) is both a strength for treatment standardization and a limitation for cognitive-behavioural recovery.

Predictions and Outlook

Given the heavy focus on the cognitive and biological approaches in this series, future Paper 1 papers are highly likely to feature comprehensive evaluation essays on the Social approach (such as Milgram or Piliavin) or the Learning approach (such as Bandura or Pepperberg). In the Specialist Options, topics like satisfaction at work and adherence to medical advice remain highly recurrent and are ripe for structured design questions.