Overview of the 2024 Series
The October/November 2024 series for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) presented a balanced yet highly rigorous set of papers. Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 2 (Research Methods) combined to test both the depth of candidate knowledge regarding the 12 core studies and their practical competency in designing and evaluating research. The overall difficulty lies at a solid 3.5 out of 5, representing a standard entry that rewards precise terminology and structured evaluation while heavily penalizing generic responses.
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
In Paper 1, a significant portion of the marks was concentrated in the higher-tariff essay and comparison questions. Specifically, the 8-mark comparison between Dement and Kleitman and Hölzel et al. (Q9b) and the 10-mark evaluation of Bandura et al. (Q10) demanded strong analytical structure. Candidates who scored highly were able to explicitly link their evaluation points to methodological concepts (such as internal versus ecological validity) and provide detailed, contextualized evidence. Conversely, marks were frequently lost on low-tariff questions (like Q1a and Q6b) due to a lack of precise recall of trivial details, such as the exact sample size or the control substance used.
Paper 2 showcased a major focus on the application of design principles. The 10-mark questionnaire design question (Q9a) required candidates to address four specific features: question format, examples of questions, scoring/interpretation, and the administration technique. High-scoring candidates clearly outlined closed and open questions with actual examples and detailed how they would calculate measures of central tendency to interpret the findings.
Examiner Pitfalls and Misconceptions
Examiners highlighted several key areas of candidate weakness:
- Generic definitions: Defining terms like ecological validity or matched pairs design using vague language (e.g., 'it is realistic' or 'matching people') without using technical psychological vocabulary failed to secure full marks.
- Results vs. Conclusions: In Paper 1 Q1c, candidates frequently stated the results of Hassett et al. (e.g., 'male monkeys preferred wheeled toys') instead of a broad, hormonally-influenced behavioral conclusion.
- Lack of Comparison in Difference Questions: In comparison questions, candidates often described one study and then the other without explicitly highlighting the point of difference (e.g., structure vs. function of brain imaging).
Revision Strategy and Future Predictions
To maximize performance, candidates must prioritize a dual-focus strategy: memorizing precise procedural details of core studies while practicing the structural layout of 10-mark design questions. Because the 2024 papers heavily featured the Biological and Learning approaches, future series are highly likely to shift their focus towards the Social Approach (such as Piliavin et al. and Milgram) and the Cognitive Approach (such as Pozzulo et al.). Keeping a dedicated glossary of research methods terms—especially the distinction between inter-rater and inter-observer reliability—is essential for Paper 2 success.