May/June 2025 Psychology (9990/13 & 9990/23) Exam Analysis

The May/June 2025 series for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology offered a balanced yet highly technical assessment across both papers. Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) heavily tested fine-grained procedural details from biological and cognitive core studies, while Paper 2 (Research Methods) pushed students to apply methodological theory to novel scenarios with precision.

Difficulty Verdict & Mark Distribution

With a difficulty rating of 3 out of 5 stars, the papers were highly accessible for prepared candidates but unforgiving to those who relied on surface-level knowledge. High-scoring regions were concentrated in the long-form questions: the 12-mark Hölzel et al. mindfulness question (Paper 1, Q9), the 10-mark Saavedra and Silverman button phobia evaluation (Paper 1, Q10), and the 14-mark classroom attention experiment design in Paper 2 (Q10). Together, these three sections alone accounted for over 30% of the total marks available.

Key Examiner Pitfalls & Misconceptions

  • Failing to use precise numerical data: In Paper 1, Question 4 (Perry et al.), candidates frequently lost marks by omitting exact means (such as the stranger invasion distance of 40) required by the directive 'You must use data in your answer'.
  • Incorrect positioning on validity debates: Question 6(b) required students to unpack the validity of Hassett et al. Candidates often mixed up Madison's (valid) and Zach's (invalid) perspectives, losing easy marks on application.
  • Confusing reliability and validity: In Paper 2, Question 7(c), many struggled to link multiple interpretations of a question to a lack of reliability, or the measurement of happiness instead of mindfulness to validity issues.
  • Inadequate experimental planning: In Paper 2, Question 10, candidates lost marks by failing to explicitly operationalize attention (the DV) or detail controls (such as lesson interest) in their design.

Preparation Strategy & Predictions

For future series, students should prioritize exact study demographics (such as the 72 children aged 37-69 months in Bandura et al.) and specific apparatus parameters (such as the 30 horizontal switches on Milgram's shock generator). In Paper 2, mastering the standard experimental design template—consisting of IV, DV, controls, and experimental design—remains the ultimate high-yield strategy.

Given the heavy spotlight on the Biological Approach (Hölzel and Dement & Kleitman) in this series, upcoming examinations are highly likely to shift their long-form evaluation focus onto the Cognitive Approach (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al.) and Learning Approach (e.g., Saavedra and Silverman). Expect future Paper 2 scenarios to explore naturalistic observation or correlation designs rather than simple lab experiments.