May/June 2025 Exam Suite Analysis
The May/June 2025 Psychology (9990) papers presented a robust challenge, earning a solid 4-star difficulty rating. Across all components, there was an intensified focus on precise methodological vocabulary, rigorous evaluation structures, and exact data-driven evidence. Students who relied on vague, generic definitions or lacked structured study-specific data struggled to access the top mark bands.
Where the Marks are Won
- Core Study Accuracy (Paper 1): The examiner report emphasizes the necessity of precise recall. For instance, in Fagen et al. (elephant learning), generic answers like 'food' were rejected in favor of the specific primary reinforcer, banana. Similarly, Dement and Kleitman results demanded actual quantitative comparison data (e.g., 152 dreams recalled in REM vs. 11 in NREM) rather than simple directional statements.
- Operationalisation in Design (Papers 2 & 4): Planning questions—such as Paper 2's sleep experiment design and Paper 4's clinical attributional styles—heavily rewarded clear operationalisation of both the independent and dependent variables, alongside explicit control measures.
- Evaluating with the 'Named Issue': High-mark essay questions (e.g., Milgram evaluation in Paper 1 and OCD treatments in Paper 3) required students to directly address the named issue (such as sampling techniques or the use of children in research) as part of their evaluation to unlock the highest levels.
Examiner Pitfalls & Strategy
A frequent error observed was the misuse of psychological concepts in application questions. In Paper 2, when explaining why a measure was unsuitable for correlation, referencing 'quantitative data' was deemed completely irrelevant; candidates had to explicitly discuss the need for continuous/interval/scale data rather than categorical (nominal) data. To succeed in future series, candidates must practice writing operationalised procedures and memorising exact procedural controls and participant characteristics for all core studies.