Examiner's Review: October/November 2025 Series Analysis
The October/November 2025 examination series for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) represents a balanced yet demanding assessment. Spanning four core papers, the series tests cognitive recall, methodological precision, and deep evaluative skills. With a difficulty rating of 3.8 out of 5, students faced several sophisticated structural constraints designed to separate high-performing candidates from those relying on rote memorization.
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
Across Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 2 (Research Methods), marks were heavily concentrated in two areas: standardisation detail and methodological justification. In Paper 1, the 8-mark comparison question on the biological approach (Question 9b) specifically prohibited references to brain measurement techniques, forcing candidates to evaluate less obvious procedural similarities between Dement & Kleitman and Hassett et al.. In Paper 2, Section B, designing an interview study on exciting experiences demanded highly operationalised variables, clear descriptions of qualitative data analysis, and robust ethical considerations.
Specialist Options: Deep Dive into Papers 3 and 4
Papers 3 and 4 presented rigorous essay and application challenges. The evaluation questions (worth 10 marks each) mandated discussions of specific named issues such as reductionism versus holism in clinical treatments (MAOIs vs. REBT) and objective versus subjective data in consumer behavior studies (Ciceri et al.). Candidates who scored in Level 5 did not just list strengths and weaknesses; they seamlessly contextualised the debate throughout their argument, linking psychological theory back to real-world application.
Common Examiner Pitfalls and Misconceptions
- Confusing Results with Conclusions: In Milgram's study, citing that '26 participants pressed the 450V switch' is a quantitative result, not a conclusion. A conclusion must be a generalized deduction, such as 'individuals are highly obedient to authority even when ordered to cause harm.'
- Inadequate Operationalisation: In Paper 2, behavioural categories for student study habits (e.g., 'note-taking') required a clear explanation of how they would be measured and what potential miscategorisations could occur (such as using an iPad for non-study purposes).
- Unethical Design Zero-Scores: In Paper 4's planning questions, any planned research that actively breached ethical guidelines (such as causing distress in animals without minimizing harm or failing to provide an opt-out for human participants) was capped at a score of 0.
Strategic Revision and Predictions
To succeed in future series, candidates must shift their focus from memorizing raw data values to mastering methodological justifications. Be prepared to explain why a specific experimental design, control, or sampling technique was selected, and the exact practical consequences of these choices. For the upcoming series, expect Schizophrenia to take center stage in clinical evaluations, alongside an overdue focus on Group Behaviour and Fagen et al. in the core approaches paper.