May/June 2024 Psychology (9990) Examiner Analysis
The May/June 2024 series presented a balanced but conceptually demanding suite of papers. While Paper 1 tested core study details with typical rigor, Papers 2, 3, and 4 required candidates to demonstrate highly integrated methodological planning and critical evaluation skills. Students who relied on rote learning struggled on questions demanding application to novel scenarios, whereas those with strong conceptual frameworks excelled.
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
The highest concentration of marks was allocated to the structured planning and extended evaluation questions. In Paper 2, the correlational design on shyness and happiness carried a crucial 10 marks. Many candidates lost easy marks here by failing to treat both co-variables as continuous data or by introducing an independent variable, effectively changing a correlation into an experiment. Similarly, in Paper 4, Section B plans (such as designing a structured observation of machinery sabotage) required precise, replicable steps and defined behavioural categories to secure top-tier marks.
Common Examiner Pitfalls
- Lack of Contextualisation in Evaluation: In the 10-mark evaluation of Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) or fear-related disorders, candidates frequently listed generic strengths and weaknesses (e.g., "case studies are not generalisable") without anchoring them to the specific psychological mechanisms of phobic development or treatment.
- Superficial Explanations of Cognitive Models: Conceptual questions, such as those on System 1 and System 2 decision-making, were often answered too briefly. Candidates failed to explain the cognitive effort, speed, and automaticity differences that define these thinking modes.
- Methodological Inconsistencies: When asked to suggest controls or justify hypotheses in longitudinal designs, many students did not address the inevitable issues of participant attrition or history effects.
Actionable Strategy & Future Predictions
To maximize success in upcoming series, students must treat research methods as an active application tool, not a separate unit. When studying any core study (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al. or Hölzel et al.), practice mapping its exact design choices (counterbalancing, sample biases, and construct validity) directly onto Paper 2 and Paper 4 scenario questions.
Our analysis indicates that Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and Adherence to medical advice are highly overdue for comprehensive 10-mark evaluation essays in the next series. Master the clinical diagnostic criteria and focus heavily on cognitive-behavioural treatment models (such as exposure and response prevention) to ensure you are fully prepared.