Difficulty Verdict
The May/June 2023 series presented a balanced but challenging test of candidates' methodological precision and detailed knowledge of the core studies. Paper 13 (Approaches, Issues, and Debates) sat comfortably at a moderate difficulty level, while Paper 23 (Research Methods) pushed students to demonstrate precise application rather than generic recall, representing a higher hurdle for many.
Where the Marks Are Won and Lost
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves by providing explicit contextual details and precise quantitative data. In Paper 13, questions demanding results (such as the Laney et al. false memory questionnaires) penalised those who offered generic descriptions instead of specific numerical differences. In Paper 23, marks were heavily concentrated in the application of research scenarios. Candidates who successfully designed Dr. Caesar's correlational study on phobias by defining continuous variables for both animal size and phobia severity scored highly, whereas those who designed a standard experiment with an independent variable lost significant marks.
Examiner Pitfalls & Misconceptions
The principal examiner report highlighted several persistent errors. First, candidates frequently confuse a result (factual and data-based) with a conclusion (a generic, conceptual synthesis). Second, definitions of random sampling often fell into circular phrasing, such as 'picking people at random from the street,' which actually describes opportunity sampling. Lastly, on evaluation essays (such as the Dement & Kleitman sleep study), failing to write about the named issue of reliability capped candidate scores at a maximum of 6 out of 10 marks.
Revision Strategy & Future Predictions
To succeed in upcoming sessions, students must practice translating theoretical research definitions into practical scenarios. Create flashcards specifically matching core studies to their respective methodological designs (e.g., Saavedra & Silverman as a case study). For Paper 2, practice writing open and closed questions that include explicit scoring systems, as partial answers lacking scale definitions are common mark-losers. Expect upcoming papers to place a heavy emphasis on less frequently tested core studies like Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) and Hölzel et al. (mindfulness), particularly focusing on their experimental controls and biological measures.