Difficulty Verdict
This series sits at a moderate difficulty level (3 out of 5 stars). While the factual recall questions on core studies are highly accessible for prepared students, the extended evaluation and application scenarios demand high-level analytical skills.
Where the Marks Are
In Paper 1, substantial marks are allocated to comparison skills, particularly in the 8-mark similarity question between Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) and Andrade (doodling). In Paper 2, Section B carries a heavy weight with a 10-mark design-a-study case study on attention, requiring candidates to integrate specific structural features like triangulation and operationalization.
Examiner Pitfalls
- Lack of Context in Evaluation: In the 10-mark essay on Hölzel et al., candidates often make generic evaluative points (e.g., 'sample size is small') without linking them to the specific study context (e.g., 16 participants completing the FFMQ).
- Confusing Learning Theories: For application questions based on Fagen et al., candidates often incorrectly suggest classical conditioning or social learning instead of sticking to operant conditioning principles (shaping, reinforcers).
- Weak Operationalization: When asked to identify the dependent variable, simply writing 'time estimation' instead of the fully operationalized 'estimation of how long the activity lasted' resulted in missed marks.
Strategic Advice
To secure top grades, students must practice drawing complete data collection tables with clearly labeled rows and columns, and master distinguishing between different types of hypotheses. Furthermore, always ensure that any methodological critique of a core study is backed up by specific numerical details or procedures from that study.
Predictions
As social and cognitive approaches were heavily tested in Paper 1, upcoming series are highly likely to feature extended questions on the biological approach (e.g., Dement and Kleitman) or key social experiments like Milgram (obedience) which were underrepresented in this series.