Cambridge IAS-Level · Analysis & Prediction

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

The Summer 2024 examination papers for Psychology (9990) present a balanced yet highly detailed assessment. Paper 12 demands meticulous knowledge of core study procedures, while Paper 22 places a premium on scenario application and rigorous planning of participant observations.

Updated: 12 Jun 2026

Analysis Sample paper

Difficulty 3.5/5

Total marks

120

Duration

180 mins

Most tested

Research Methods Design, Application, and Core Study Procedures

Paper breakdown

Paper 1 Approaches, Issues and Debates (9990/12): 60 marks · 90 minsPaper 2 Research Methods (9990/22): 60 marks · 90 mins

Top chapters

Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · 12 marksBaron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) · 12 marksSaavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · 7 marks

Difficulty Verdict

Overall, this series of the Cambridge International AS Level Psychology (9990) exam holds a moderate to high difficulty. While the questions are accessible, they demand an exceptionally high level of procedural precision. For instance, questions on Pozzulo et al. and Bandura et al. required candidates to recall highly specific layout details and toy variations rather than general concepts.

Where the Marks Are Won and Lost

Success in Paper 12 relies heavily on the ability to differentiate between a result (raw data) and a conclusion (the psychological meaning behind the data), as highlighted in the Andrade (doodling) and Dement and Kleitman questions. Many candidates lost marks by simply listing numbers where a conceptual conclusion was requested. In Paper 22, marks were won by those who could seamlessly apply methodological concepts to the novel scenarios (such as Daku's school queue study or Carol's sports centre survey).

Examiner Pitfalls & Traps

Tautological Definitions: In Paper 12 Q4(a), defining 'obedience' by using the word 'obedient' or 'obey' without demonstrating understanding of following authority commands was a frequent error.
Ignoring the Named Issue: On the 10-mark evaluation of the Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test), candidates frequently lost significant marks by failing to address the mandatory named issue: ethics.
Methodology without Context: In Paper 22's scenario questions, candidates often wrote generic textbook answers (e.g., explaining volunteer sampling) without explicitly linking their answers to the character's study.

Preparation Strategy & Future Predictions

To prepare for future series, students must move beyond memorizing study summaries. You should create highly detailed fact sheets outlining the exact apparatus, sample compositions, and control tasks of each core study. For Paper 2, mastering the four core pillars of planning (type of observation, role of observer, setting, and structuring of categories) is critical, as it guarantees a baseline of high marks in the design question.

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 Answer (< 4 marks)50 marks · 30 questions
Medium Answer (4-6 marks)42 marks · 9 questions
Extended Response (8-10 marks)28 marks · 3 questions

Mark accessibility

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

79%within easy or medium reach

easy: 40 marksmedium: 55 markshard: 25 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.

General Research Methods (Design & Planning)

47 marks · Difficulty 3.2 · recurrence 5%

Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)

12 marks · Difficulty 2.8 · recurrence 5%

Fagen et al. (elephant learning)

12 marks · Difficulty 3 · recurrence 4%

Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)

7 marks · Difficulty 2.5 · 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)4%

Highly recurrent theme focusing on the differentiation between classical conditioning and evaluative learning, which was only lightly evaluated this session.

Milgram (individual vs situational debate)4%

Obedience remains a core curriculum focus; next papers are highly likely to target individual/situational factors rather than purely ethics.

Cumulative marks ladder

The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.

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)

Jun 2024 (V2)

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

Confusing sample size (number of participants) with sample variety (diversity) when discussing limitations or benefits of sample modifications.
Writing purely generic evaluation points in research methods scenarios instead of anchoring design features directly to the target study context (e.g., Carol's gym study).
Stating numerical data results when the question explicitly prompts for a conceptual conclusion (e.g., in Andrade's doodling study).

Misconceptions

Believing that Dement and Kleitman's work proved dreams only occur during REM sleep, rather than demonstrating a strong positive association with recall.
Conflating participant variables with situational variables when an environmental variable (like waiting in a long lunch queue) impacts behavior.

Where marks are lost

Failing to provide specific detail on unique features of the target-absent layout in Pozzulo et al. (such as the presence of the silhouette).
Omiting direct evaluation of ethical guidelines (the named issue) in the 10-mark essay evaluating the Eyes Test study.
Neglecting to detail all four required features (type of observation, role of observer, environmental setting, and categories/structure) in the 10-mark design plan.

Estimated grade cut-off

Updated: 12 Jun 2026

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

Level	Mark	Percentage
A	75/120	63%
B	67/120	56%
C	58/120	48%
D	50/120	42%
E	42/120	35%

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