2026 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) Past Paper: Analysis & Answers

Assessment Overview & Difficulty Verdict

The May/June 2026 series for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990) maintains standard Cambridge rigor across Papers 13, 23, 33, and 43. With an overall difficulty index of 3.4 / 5.0, the paper set tests precise core study knowledge, experimental designs, and methodological evaluations across specialist pathways.

Where the Marks Are Distributed

Across the papers, marks are heavily concentrated in:

• Core Study Recall & Application (Paper 1): High-mark questions evaluate candidate grasp of experimental setups, such as Bandura's aggressive conditions, Perry et al.'s participant features, and Hassett et al.'s monkey toy preferences (10-mark evaluation).
• Methodology & Study Planning (Papers 2 & 4): Substantial credit is awarded for practical operationalisation, controlling extraneous variables, interpreting statistical distributions (standard deviation), and designing rigorous 10-mark empirical investigations (correlational studies, naturalistic observations, and experiments).
• Specialist Options (Papers 3 & 4): High tariff 10-mark evaluation and 6-mark descriptive questions focus on key syllabus topics including OCD (Y-BOCS), packaging aesthetics in Consumer Psychology, adherence techniques in Health, and workplace sabotage and shiftwork rotations in Organisational Psychology.

Examiner Pitfalls & Common Traps

Examiner reports emphasize several key pitfalls where candidates drop preventable marks:

• Generic Methodology Answers: In Paper 2 and Paper 4 planning questions, failing to contextualise answers specifically to the given scenario (e.g., public transport music knowledge or shoe factory accidents) caps marks to basic levels.
• Ethical Misunderstandings: When discussing ethical guidelines (such as in Piliavin or animal research in Hassett), candidates often confuse human vs. animal guidelines or give tautological definitions (e.g., stating 'they were not aware of right to withdraw' rather than explaining the physical inability to leave the moving train).
• Confusion over Study Design Terms: Misidentifying experimental designs (such as confusing matched pairs with repeated measures) or offering an additional independent variable instead of an extraneous variable control.

Strategic Revision Advice

To maximize scores, candidates should practice contextualizing every evaluation point with specific study evidence. Ensure precise definitions of research method terms (counterbalancing, random allocation, idiographic vs. nomothetic approaches) and practice designing standardized measurement scales for Section B planning questions.