The Cambridge 9990 Psychology Exam: Navigating the 2025 Papers
The October/November 2025 Psychology series presents a balanced but rigorous test of both core content knowledge and practical research methods. Across Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 2 (Research Methods), candidates are expected not just to regurgitate details of the core studies, but to critically compare underlying theories, evaluate ecological validity, and design technically sound field experiments.
Difficulty Verdict: Balanced with Applied Hurdles
The papers lie firmly in the moderate-to-challenging range. While Paper 1 contains highly accessible direct recall marks—such as naming specific tension signs in Milgram or animal ethical guidelines in Hassett et al.—Paper 2 introduces heavy contextualised application. Drawing a correct bar chart with touching bars for age groups, interpreting standard deviation differences, and planning an advertisement attention study on a train require strong methodological fluency.
Where the Marks Are Won (and Lost)
- The High-Yield Giants: Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) dominated the mark distribution, accounting for significant weight across both papers. A stellar performance on Paper 1's 10-mark evaluation essay (which mandatorily required addressing ecological validity) and Paper 2's sample generalisability questions was key to a high grade.
- Theoretical Contrast: The 8-mark comparison between Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) and Bandura et al. (aggression) tested candidates' ability to explain structural learning differences (classical/operant conditioning versus social learning) rather than merely listing study details.
- Methodological Precision: Dr Gul’s field experiment planning question demanded precise operationalisation of the dependent variable (\(\text{attention}\)) and at least two standardized controls to access the top level.
Examiner Pitfalls to Avoid
A frequent trap highlighted by examiners is the failure to contextualise. In Paper 2, when asked why the standard deviation for the adults was larger than the children, many candidates explained standard deviation theoretically without linking it to the restricted age range of children (\(4\text{ to }7\) years) versus decades of adulthood. Furthermore, candidates frequently confused correlation with causation in the childhood vocabulary scenario, overlooking the role of third-party confounding variables like parenting.
Future Strategy & Predictions
For upcoming series, expect a heavy shift towards cognitive approach studies that were under-represented in this series, particularly Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test). Additionally, health promotion topics are highly likely to reappear as major evaluation areas. Candidates should practice writing comparative points side-by-side using connectives like "whereas" or "in contrast to", ensuring they do not write isolated, sequential summaries of studies when comparison is demanded.