Examiner's Deep-Dive: October/November 2024 Exam Analysis

The October/November 2024 session for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) presented a beautifully balanced pair of papers (12 and 22). While Paper 1 tested precision recall of core study mechanics and theoretical frameworks, Paper 2 demanded active application of research design principles to novel scenarios. Overall, the papers fall into a moderate-to-challenging difficulty band (3.4 out of 5). High marks were highly accessible to candidates who mastered core study details, but those relying on vague summaries found themselves heavily penalised on application-based questions.

Where the Marks Were Won and Lost

In Paper 1, questions such as Saavedra & Silverman's 'Feelings Thermometer' and Hölzel's inclusion criteria demanded highly specific knowledge. Candidates often lose marks by giving generic answers (e.g., describing a thermometer as just "measuring feelings" rather than identifying it as a 9-point scale from 0 to 8 measuring subjective distress across 11 button stimuli). The 10-mark evaluation essay on Andrade’s doodling study was another major discriminator. Candidates who secured top-band marks did so by explicitly addressing the named issue of sampling technique (opportunity sample of 40 recruitment panel members) and providing a balanced critique with clear contextual links.

Paper 2 shifted the focus heavily towards methodological application. The 10-mark observational design question (Lixin's town centre social behaviour study) required students to clearly articulate four essential features: participant/non-participant role, overt/covert nature, naturalistic setting, and structured behavioral categories with operational definitions. Those who forgot to operationalise at least three distinct behaviours failed to reach Level 4 or 5.

Key Examiner Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Lack of Contextualisation: In Paper 2, writing generic definitions of research concepts (like repeated measures or demand characteristics) without linking them directly to the provided scenarios (e.g., Daniel's music study or Jenny's doodling questionnaire) caps the response at a maximum of 1 out of 2 marks.
  • Failing to Highlight Both Sides: For comparison questions, such as comparing the ethical dimensions of Milgram and Perry, examiners expected explicit comparisons on named guidelines (e.g., deception or protection from harm) using direct evidence from both studies. Simply stating "Milgram had stooges and Perry had an animated avatar" is descriptive rather than comparative.
  • Confusing Core Terminology: In self-report methodologies, confusing 'paper and pencil' questionnaires with face-to-face interviews remains a persistent misconception. The manual, physical nature of paper-and-pencil completion must be emphasised.

Preparation Strategy & Predictions

For upcoming assessment cycles, candidates must prioritise active recall of procedural details. Flashcards focusing on the exact sample sizes, recruitment methods, and numerical measures (like the specific rating scales) of all core studies are invaluable. For Paper 2, practice writing mock design-a-study responses using structured checklists to ensure no critical methodological feature is missed.

Looking ahead, major studies such as Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) and Fagen et al. (elephant learning) were noticeably absent in this series and are highly likely to feature prominently in the next round. Furthermore, expect a core evaluation essay focusing on the biological or cognitive approach (e.g., Schachter and Singer or Baron-Cohen) to succeed the learning-heavy themes of the 2024 papers.