Difficulty Verdict

This exam series presents a medium-to-high difficulty level, typical of the Cambridge International AS Level standard but with an increased demand for contextual precision. Paper 1 requires fine-grained knowledge of core procedures, such as the exact definition of response measures in Bandura et al. and training steps in Fagen et al. Paper 2 pushes students to demonstrate true methodological expertise, particularly in designing a valid correlational study with continuous co-variables.

Where the Marks Are Won or Lost

High-scoring candidates secured their marks by avoiding generic, textbook-style answers. In the Baron-Cohen similarity question, top marks were awarded for explaining how both studies established cause-and-effect relationships rather than simply identifying that they were experimental. In Paper 2, the 10-mark correlational design was the ultimate differentiator; candidates who clearly defined and operationalised both co-variables on a continuous scale (e.g., using ordinal or interval rating scales for shyness and happiness) scored in the top band.

Examiner Pitfalls & Misconceptions

Examiners flagged several persistent student errors across both papers:

  • Lack of Context: In Saavedra and Silverman evaluation, writing generic points (such as "the sample was too small") without linking them specifically to the 9-year-old boy's button phobia or his subsequent response to therapy.
  • MRI Misconceptions: In Hölzel et al., students frequently argued that children cannot undergo MRI scans due to harmful radiation. This is a physics misconception, as MRI scans use magnetic fields, not ionising radiation. The actual issues are movement artifacts and claustrophobia.
  • Ordinal/Continuous Confusion: In the correlation question, many designed experiments or used categorical/nominal groupings (such as "shy" vs "not shy"), which automatically capped their marks at Level 2.

Revision Strategy & Predictions

To succeed in future series, students must move beyond memorising simple definitions and focus on standardisation and operationalisation. Practising the step-by-step drafting of laboratory and correlational designs under timed conditions is essential. Our analysis predicts that Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) and Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) are highly overdue for major 10-mark and 8-mark questions in upcoming papers, as they were minimally tested in this series.