May/June 2024 Exam Series Verdict
The 2024 examination papers for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) confirm a structural shift toward testing highly specific details of both classic and newly introduced core studies (such as Fagen et al. (elephant learning)). Across Paper 12 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 22 (Research Methods), candidates faced questions demanding precise numerical results, experimental controls, and clear definitions of procedural steps. The difficulty is graded at a solid 3.4 out of 5. While the questions themselves are direct, securing top-band marks requires an exceptional grasp of contextualized methodology and the ability to link general research principles directly to specific study scenarios.
Where the Marks are Won and Lost
A significant proportion of marks is concentrated in AO2 (Application) and AO3 (Analysis and Evaluation). In Paper 12, the 8-mark comparison question (comparing Fagen et al. and Bandura et al.) and the 10-mark essay on Baron-Cohen et al. serve as major differentiators. In Paper 22, the 10-mark planning question (Chloe's canteen observation) carries substantial weight. Candidates who did not clearly outline the four mandatory features (participant observation, overt/covert, naturalistic/controlled, and structured/unstructured) in their designs automatically capped their scores. For Specialist Options (Papers 32 and 42), the main mark-yield lies in the detailed description of treatments (like ECT and CBT for Schizophrenia) and the systematic application of models (such as the Health Belief Model or McClelland's Achievement Theory).
Examiner Pitfalls to Avoid
- The 'Generic Answer' Trap: Examiners repeatedly penalize candidates who give textbook definitions of terms (e.g., 'case study' or 'situational variable') without linking them directly to the target study (such as Saavedra and Silverman or Daku's obedience study).
- Misunderstanding Ethics: On the Baron-Cohen et al. evaluation essay, many candidates lost marks by discussing ethical guidelines (such as right to withdraw, deception, or debriefing) that are not actually addressed in the original journal paper. Stick to minimizing harm and informed consent.
- Weakness of Planning: When planning studies in Paper 42, candidates frequently forget to provide concrete examples of the questions they would ask or fail to fully describe the format of their rating scales (e.g., specifying a 1-5 Likert scale with labeled anchors).
Revision Strategy & Future Outlook
To maximize efficiency, prioritize your revision around Research Methods and the core study procedures. Because research methods are tested across all four papers, mastering variables, sampling, and experimental designs yields the highest return on investment (ROI). For the upcoming series, expect a heavy emphasis on ecological validity debates and a likely focus on classic cognitive and learning approach studies that have not seen major representation in recent cycles, such as Milgram's obedience variations or Saavedra and Silverman's button phobia.