Cambridge IAS-Level · Analysis & Prediction

2024 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Past Paper Analysis

The May/June 2024 Psychology (9990) Papers 11 and 21 represent a balanced yet rigorous assessment. Paper 11 features challenging comparisons under the biological approach and critical evaluation of Fagen et al., while Paper 21 tests precise operationalisation, data-table rendering, and a demanding case-study design question.

Updated: 12 Jun 2026

Analysis Sample paper

Difficulty 3.5/5

Total marks

120

Duration

180 mins

Most tested

Research Methods & Experimental Design

Paper breakdown

Paper 11 Approaches, Issues and Debates: 60 marks · 90 minsPaper 21 Research Methods: 60 marks · 90 mins

Top chapters

Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) · 16 marksPozzulo et al. (line-ups) · 13 marksFagen et al. (elephant learning) · 10 marksResearch Methods (General Core) · 45 marks

Overall Paper Difficulty Verdict

The May/June 2024 session for Psychology (9990) Papers 11 and 21 falls into a solid medium-to-hard difficulty band (Difficulty Index 3.5). While standard factual recall was rewarded generously in the opening sections, the analytical weight of Paper 11's comparison task and Paper 21's experimental design scenario separated top-tier candidates from the rest. Key hurdles included the demanding requirements of designing a valid case study for autistic doodling and navigating fine-grained distinctions in animal research ethics.

Where the Marks Were Won and Lost

A significant portion of marks was decided in the structured and extended response questions. In Paper 11, Question 9(b) (worth 8 marks) required explaining differences between the sleep study and another biological study; many students lost marks here by merely detailing both studies rather than explicitly contrastive analysis of their methodology (e.g., EEG vs. MRI, or functional vs. structural scanning). In Paper 21, Question 10(a) (case study design, 10 marks) required systematic application of four distinct features: participant details, content of information, multiple data collection methods, and data triangulation. Missing any of these criteria capped candidates below the top band.

Examiner Pitfalls and Misconceptions

Vague Comparatives: On Hassett et al. (monkeys), writing 'played more' instead of specifying 'duration of play' meant zero marks. Always use exact variables.
Independent Measures Confusion: Many candidates defined independent measures as having 'different conditions' rather than emphasizing that different participants or separate groups are used for each level of the IV.
Graph-to-Table Errors: In Paper 21 Q5(c), students lost marks due to incomplete headings on their rendered tables. Header labels must fully denote the variable units, such as 'percentage correct identification' and 'type of target'.

Preparation Strategy & Future Outlook

For upcoming sessions, students must shift from simple memorisation of core study summaries to practicing comparative matrix tables across all approaches. Focus heavily on operationalising variables, identifying exact sampling strategies, and designing tailored methodologies under strict guidelines (excluding sampling/ethics when asked). High-value topics such as Saavedra and Silverman and clinical explanations of Schizophrenia remain highly overdue and are prime targets for next season.

Charts

Marks by chapter

See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.

Question type mix

Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.

Short Answer60 marks · 33 questions
Structured32 marks · 7 questions
Extended Response28 marks · 3 questions

Mark accessibility

Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.

75%within easy or medium reach

easy: 35 marksmedium: 55 markshard: 30 marks

Difficulty trend

Compare difficulty across recent years.

Command word frequency

Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.

Skill weighting

Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.

Study ROI

Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.

Research Methods

45 marks · Difficulty 3.2 · recurrence 5%

Dement & Kleitman (Sleep/Dreams)

16 marks · Difficulty 2.9 · recurrence 5%

Pozzulo et al. (Line-ups)

13 marks · Difficulty 2.7 · recurrence 4%

Fagen et al. (Elephant Learning)

10 marks · Difficulty 3.4 · recurrence 4%

Time vs marks

Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.

marksmins

Next-year prediction

Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.

Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)88%

Completely absent in this session. Expected to feature heavily as a core evaluative or comparative study in future sessions.

Schizophrenia (Clinical Psychology)82%

Clinical papers frequently rotate core disorders; treatments/explanations of schizophrenia are highly likely to top the next syllabus rotation.

Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)78%

Only utilized as a brief comparative option in Paper 11 Q9b. Strongly anticipated for a full standalone recall/evaluation question.

Topic-year heatmap

Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.

Jun 2023 (V1)

Jun 2023 (V2)

Jun 2023 (V3)

Nov 2023 (V1)

Nov 2023 (V2)

Nov 2023 (V3)

Jun 2024 (V1)

Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)

Bandura et al. (aggression)

Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)

Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)

Milgram (obedience)

Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)

Andrade (doodling)

Laney et al. (false memory)

Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion)

Cognitive Approach Assumptions

Examiner insights

Official report

Common pitfalls

Using general expressions like 'played more' instead of specifying the required variable 'duration of play' in Hassett et al.
Omitting explicit and comprehensive column/row headings when drawing data tables from bar graphs (Paper 21 Q5c).
Failing to establish clear baseline comparisons in evaluative or comparative essay questions, such as simply summarizing two studies side-by-side.

Misconceptions

Confusing independent measures design with repeated measures by focusing definitions on 'different conditions' rather than 'different participant groups' in each condition.
Assuming the animal guideline of 'species' refers generally to avoiding harm, rather than specifically selecting species that suffer the least while still satisfying research goals.

Where marks are lost

In Paper 11 Question 10, failure to include thorough evidence related to 'quantitative data' alongside standard evaluative points (strengths/weaknesses).
In Paper 21 Question 10(a), losing structural marks by omitting one of the four mandatory case study features (e.g., triangulation or participant background details).

Estimated grade cut-off

Updated: 12 Jun 2026

Source: Cambridge International component thresholds (AS aggregate, derived)

Level	Mark	Percentage
A	77/120	64%
B	70/120	58%
C	62/120	52%
D	54/120	45%
E	46/120	38%

Estimated cut-offs from Cambridge International component thresholds (AS aggregate, derived); may differ from the official boundaries.

Know what the examiners want — now go get those marks

Thinka is an AI practice app used by 100,000+ DSE students to drill questions and get instant feedback on every answer. You already know the high-frequency topics and where marks are lost — now practice those specifically on Thinka and turn this analysis into actual marks.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Know what's tested? Drill those topics on Thinka — AI questions, instant marking.

Start Practising Free