Overall Verdict & Exam Character
The May/June 2026 exam series across Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 2 (Research Methods) maintains the structured rigour characteristic of the 9990 specification. The examination demands a dual mastery: exact, granular factual recall of core studies (such as the specific shock voltage milestones in Milgram, sample statistics in Piliavin, and MRI/MBSR details in Hölzel) and higher-order application where candidates must tailor methodological concepts to novel research scenarios.
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
High-scoring candidates demonstrated exact procedural familiarity and strict adherence to command constraints:
- Point Distinction in Explanations: In Paper 1, full marks on debate and ethical questions (such as Q6 and Q7) required explicit pairing of conceptual definitions with grounded evidence from the named studies rather than generic observations.
- Level-of-Response Precision: The 8-mark comparison between Milgram and Piliavin (Q9b) rewarded candidates who fully explained the commonalities (e.g., deception, mundane realism, observational metrics) rather than just stating parallel descriptions. In the 10-mark Andrade evaluation (Q10), explicit discussion of ecological validity was required to unlock Level 4 and Level 5 bands.
- Operationalisation in Design: On Paper 2 Q9(a), candidates secured top-band marks by clearly separating both independent variables (gender and toy type) and explicitly operationalising the measurement of play behaviour alongside two robust standardisations.
Key Examiner Traps and Pitfalls
A persistent source of mark loss was rubric neglect and tautological answers:
- Ignoring Negative Directives: On Paper 1 Q9(b), candidates who evaluated or compared sample characteristics were penalised under the negative instruction 'Do not refer to the sample'. Similarly, in Paper 2 Q9(a) and Q9(b), bringing up sampling methods sacrificed available marks.
- Incomplete Methodological Links: For questions requiring closed questions with options (Paper 2 Q7b), candidates frequently wrote questions without including the explicit response scales or multiple-choice brackets.
- Vague Definitions: Defining ecological validity as merely 'applying to the real world' without reference to generalised settings or representative tasks failed to earn full credit.
Strategic Revision & Forecast
Students preparing for future series must practice writing structured comparisons with balanced paragraphs for both studies. Focus revision on operationalising behavioral variables in naturalistic contexts, revising exact animal ethical guidelines (replacement, species, reduction), and practicing scenario-based questionnaire and interview construction.