May/June 2023 Exam Verdict: Precision is Paramount
The May/June 2023 Psychology papers (9990/11 and 9990/21) presented a rigorous test of candidates' precise knowledge and methodological dexterity. A key theme of this series was extreme specificity. While many candidates displayed a strong grasp of general psychological concepts, they frequently stumbled when asked to recall highly detailed features of core studies or apply generic research methods to novel scenarios. This resulted in an above-average volume of blank responses, particularly in Paper 11 Question 5 (Laney et al. results) and Question 6 (Cognitive approach assumptions).
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
In Paper 1, the 8-mark comparison between Dement and Kleitman and Canli et al. (Question 9b) proved highly discriminative. Candidates who successfully mapped clear comparison points (e.g., sample generalisability, quantitative data collection, and objective brain measurement techniques) scored highly. Conversely, many lost marks by simply listing study details without explicit, structural comparison. In the 10-mark evaluation of Bandura et al. (Question 10), failing to address the named issue of reliability restricted candidates to a maximum of 6 marks, highlighting the danger of using pre-prepared essays.
Paper 2 demonstrated that candidates struggle to bridge the gap between abstract methodology and scenario application. In Section B and C, a notable portion of candidates designed experimental studies instead of correlational ones, or failed to correctly write a standard directional hypothesis (often repeating the prompt tautologically rather than stating the IV and DV relationship).
Examiner Pitfalls and Crucial Advice
The Principal Examiner reports highlighted several key errors that recurringly cost candidates high-tier marks:
- Confusing Results and Conclusions: A result is a factual piece of data (e.g., mean scores), while a conclusion is a generic psychological claim derived from that data.
- Weak Scenarios & Contextualisation: Answers to questions containing the instruction 'in this study' must explicitly reference the specific variables and events of that scenario (such as referring to 'shoppers' or 'shelves' in Steve's retail observation rather than generic 'participants').
- Circular Definitions: When asked to define a concept like 'spread' or 'random sampling', candidates often repeated the word in their definition (e.g., 'random sampling is when you sample randomly'), which receives zero credit.
Preparation Strategy & Predictions
To excel in future series, candidates must create highly structured revision cards for each core study covering: Sample, Aim, Method, Procedure, specific Results, and Conclusions. For Research Methods, mock design tasks must be practiced regularly under timed conditions, with a strict focus on differentiating observational, experimental, and correlational designs. Given the absence of recent deep evaluations on Schachter and Singer, this study is highly likely to be targeted in upcoming series for core evaluative questions. Additionally, cognitive approach assumptions and physiological measurements are overdue for central, high-mark testing.