9990 · June 2024
Psychology
The marks achieved by the candidates sitting this examination covered a wide spread of possible marks. However, three-quarters of the candidates scored 27 marks or less.
Source: Cambridge International
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
No data available in official reports
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
Candidates need to know all components of every core study as listed in the syllabus.
Questions can be asked about any part of a core study.
Candidates need to read the whole question carefully to ensure that their responses are fulfilling the demands of each one.
For example, the question may require data, a named issue to be included or relate back to a previous answer.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
Report
Examiner report
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
No data available in official reports
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 PSYCHOLOGY Paper 9990/21 Research Methods Key messages • Candidates frequently scored lower marks on questions where the stem used the command word ‘explain’, which requires more than just a statement. For example, many lost marks for not giving a detailed enough answer to a 2 or 3 mark ‘explain’ question but gave two basic suggestions instead. • Candidates need to look for ‘in this study’ or other question prompts that indicate the need to contextualise their answer. Without this elaboration, marks will be limited. • It is important that candidates acquire an understanding of the basic principles of effective tabulation, such as the correct use of headings and units. • Many candidates did not understand how case studies are conducted and included details of an IV/DV and other participants. Candidates need to be prepared for this question, with a clear understanding of the four required features for each of the methods on the syllabus. General comments There were some topics that candidates seemed to know well on this paper, including recall of the sampling method used by Milgram, an understanding of quantitative data, the calculation of the range and identifying an independent and dependent variable. Many candidates seemed to find a number of aspects of research methods challenging, with many scripts unable to access high marks. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 (a) This question part was well done, with most candidates being able to identify the sampling technique. A common error was to suggest opportunity sampling. (b) This was another well answered question part with the majority of candidates scoring 2 marks. Some candidates suggested that flyers were put up around the university so did not gain the definitive mark for ‘an advisement’/‘direct mail’. Question 2 Candidates found this question challenging, commonly giving the guidelines of protection from harm or number as opposed to the required species. Candidates who gave the right answer often needed to add relevant detail to earn the second mark. The most common correct response was identifying that researchers should not use endangered species, but this did not allow candidates to expand on their answer. Question 3 (a) The majority of candidates were able to state ‘quantitative’ and, more often than not, follow through with ‘numerical’. Some candidates were confused and stated ‘qualitative’ but went on to detail ‘number’ as the justification. A common error was to repeat the question by justifying with ‘counting words’ which could not earn credit.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 (b) Many candidates began their explanation but did not achieve the second mark as their response was often generic, i.e. not linked to the scenario. Candidates need to read the question carefully, looking for ‘in this study’ or other question prompts asking for contextualisation of the answer. Question 4 (a) Many candidates were able to achieve 2 marks here. A significant minority of candidates did not know what an independent groups design meant and attempted to explain that this was when participants work alone and not in a group. Another error was to correctly describe a repeated measures design, which was incorrect. (b) Performance on this question part was slightly lower than seen in part (a) and candidates struggled to give a creditworthy description, usually only gaining one mark for stating the actual control condition of silence/no background noise. Many candidates described controls used in experimental studies to combat extraneous variables rather than explaining a control condition. (c) Candidates often repeated the stem here, or repeated the procedure, which were not creditworthy responses. Stronger answers gained marks for stating observation and/or timing how long it took them to complete the tower. When responses did not gain full marks, this was typically due to a lack of detail. Question 5 (a) Many candidates did not fulfil the ‘both’ requirement of this question. They did not address the question as to why it was necessary for children on the one hand and adults on the other to consent. A common mistake by candidates who gained 2 marks but not 3 was to omit an explanation of what informed consent is. (b) Many candidates misunderstood the ‘explain one way’ command as ‘explain why’ and gave reasons why it was important for foils to be similar to targets. Some candidates suggested that they need to be in the same cartoon style which gained no marks or gave vague answers such as candidates’ ‘similar looks and appearance’. (c) Most candidates achieved some marks here. A common error was insufficient labelling of the table, e.g., not stating ‘percentage of correct identification’ or, if they did, using it twice as a column descriptor which was a repeat and not creditworthy. Many also included values outside the acceptable range of error for reading from the graph. A small number of candidates drew bar charts or wrote paragraphs, which were not creditworthy. A significant minority of candidates omitted this question. Question 6 Many candidates found this question challenging. The descriptions of participant observation and non- participant observation were often tautological, and many confused this with covert and overt observations. The most common mistake was to suggest that these were when the researcher took part or did not take part in the study. Some candidates were able to effectively use core studies to support their description, and Hassett et al. and Bandura et al. were both used for non-participant observation. Responses were more limited in using supporting studies for participant observation, often confusing the role of the observers in Piliavin et al. or omitting to explain that they appeared to be passengers, or suggesting the teacher was the observer in Milgram. There were some novel attempts at descriptions, some of which worked well. Question 7 (a) Candidates seemed to find this question challenging. ‘Explain which…would be most appropriate’ is asking for a justification of why one would be chosen over another – in this case why one measure of central tendency would be chosen rather than another in each case. Very few candidates were able to describe or differentiate between quantitative data that was on a scale (for the mean) or in categories (for the mode). (b) (i) This question was answered well by the majority of candidates. A minority of candidates incorrectly described the procedure for calculating the mean average.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 (ii) Where candidates achieved a mark, the most common response was to relate it to the spread of data around the mean. Few candidates went on to make a comparison with the range. A smaller number gained a mark for identifying that the mean takes all the scores in the data set into account. These candidates were more likely to gain the second mark (for a comparison to the range using only two scores). Some responses referred to the relevance of outliers. (c) Repetition of the stem was frequent here, with little additional information to explain ‘why’. For example, candidates often rewrote the hypothesis, or repeated ‘direction’. Another common mistake was to refer to correlations. Question 8 (a) (b) These question parts were answered well by the majority of candidates. Two common mistakes were to have the IV and DV the wrong way round or to state ‘children learning to read’ for part (b), which was a repetition of part of the stem rather than the variable being measured. (c) Many candidates misinterpreted this question, giving a general description of why the pictures and shapes were brightly coloured as opposed to relating it to research methodology. Candidates that did recognise the concept of this as a control, went on to use elements of the scenario well, often citing attention, to stop boredom and making a judgement in the effect this control would have had on the validity of the study. Stronger responses also included that this would ensure differences in the DV were due to the IV. Question 9 (a) (b) The vast majority of candidates misinterpreted the requirements of these questions, simply repeating the stem, i.e., ‘participant’ or ‘situation’. For part (a) there was little understanding of what constituted a participant variable. Those that did relate it to females, did not justify it in terms of their uniqueness. Candidates achieving the mark usually related their answer to personal lives. Again, for part (b), repeating the stem was common, with candidates focusing on the factory but not explaining that the factory was the environment/setting which was causing the problem. Candidates may benefit from learning key words to answer this type of question. For example, knowing that participant variables relate to internal factors or individual differences and situational variables to external or environmental factors. This would help with understanding and identifying these variables as well as defining or explaining them. (c) (i) More candidates were able to gain some credit on this question. Responses typically only gained 1 mark here as they lacked detail. Common suggestions given were either making sure the factory promoted both genders equally, selecting only females with fewer at-home responsibilities or helping the female workers with their at-home responsibilities. To gain full credit, candidates needed to expand their answers to include how questionnaires could be used to gain the necessary information or that the strategy would ensure that any differences in satisfaction would be due to gender only. (ii) Typically, candidates offered one of two ideas. One of these being the idea that male workers may be unhappy, though these responses often only gained 1 mark for lack of detail. Stronger answers explained how this could have an effect on satisfaction levels and therefore validity would be reduced. Alternatively, candidates referred to a lack of generalisability and were more likely to gain full marks. Where candidates did not gain credit, their suggestions tended not to relate to issues that were created for Heng as a researcher or for the study, i.e. they were not answering the question.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 mark, due to just suggesting it was a ‘detailed study on phobias’ which was not enough, or repeating points made in the first question. (b) This 3-mark question asked candidates to explain a way to improve validity in a case study. A full range of marks was seen for this question although there were more responses at the lower end of the mark range. Many candidates showed some understanding of validity and were able to identify a way such as standardisation or the use of different methodology but were unable to elaborate on these ways to enable them to access all 3 marks. There were some strong responses, most often about triangulation, which often produced 2 or 3 marks. The most common error beside lack of detail, was a misunderstanding between reliability and validity which reduced the number of marks available for the response. Candidates must ensure that they fully understand research method terminology such as reliability and validity. Question 2 (a) (i) This was a very accessible question for most candidates. The majority were able to identify the sampling technique as volunteer, and a significant amount were able to then go on and explain why this is the case. The most common responses used the idea that participants respond to an advert/were people who are willing to take part. Where performance was limited, it was due to responses repeating the word ‘volunteer/self-selected’ in the explanation, such as ‘volunteer sampling as it is where participants see an advert and volunteer themselves’. This would only achieve 1 mark. (ii) This 2-mark question asked candidates to suggest one weakness of the sampling method used. For this question candidates needed to identify a weakness and then link this to the scenario. The vast majority of candidate responses were able to achieve at least 1 mark for identifying the weakness, usually by correctly suggesting that a lack of generalisability is a weakness of volunteer sampling. The most common error was that many responses were generic and therefore were only able to achieve a maximum of 1 mark. To achieve the second mark, responses needed to link back to the scenario using words such as shoppers/town/responded to his advert. Question 3 (a) Almost all responses found this 1-mark question accessible and were able to achieve the mark available. The answer for this question, ‘directional hypothesis’ was definitive. (b) This 2-mark question asked candidates to explain their choice for Question 3a. Performance on this question part was mixed. Candidates needed to identify a weakness and then link this to the scenario. Creditworthy responses for 2 marks included: it says which IV level (older children) was better (DV)’. Many candidates did not achieve marks on this question due to just repeating the scenario. For example, that it shows the direction of the results or repeats that 4-year-old children make more mistakes than 8-year-old children. This is just repeating the wording in the question, or just lifting off the scenario, which is not creditworthy. Question 4 This 4-mark question asked candidates to outline two ethical guidelines used within the Hassett et al study. For each point, responses needed to name a relevant ethical guideline and then link this to the Hassett study. Creditworthy ethical guidelines included pain and distress, reward, number, species, and housing. Most responses could correctly identify two ethical guidelines for 2 marks, with the most common ones being housing and pain/distress. The most common error for this question was that responses did not elaborate on the guidelines or did not link them back to the study. In addition, some candidates, when referring to housing, would just provide a description of the housing for the monkeys rather than linking it to the ethical guidelines which meant that these responses could only achieve 1 mark for that guideline. Question 5 (a) This 1-mark question asked candidates to identify the control task in Baron-Cohen. Very few candidates recognised that the control task was the gender recognition task, with the most common error being that responses suggested that the glossary was the control task. (b) This 1-mark question asked candidates to outline what participants were required to do in the control task named in Question 5a. Inevitably candidate responses which were unable to identify
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 they hear. Candidate performance on this question was mixed. The most common error was the lack of detail given which meant that many candidates were only able to achieve the 1 mark. Question 10 (a) This 10-mark essay question asked candidates to describe how Chloë could conduct an observational study using participant observation to record the variety of behaviours during meals at work. Responses were awarded the full range of marks, although there were more at the lower end. Many candidates had a sound understanding of observations and were able to make relevant decisions about whether it should be covert or overt, structured or unstructured. There was a lack of understanding about what was meant by a naturalistic observation and this often meant that responses were not able to achieve the highest mark band. Responses within the lower mark range were often able to give a list of behavioural categories which they were going to observe and were able to produce a basic procedure that Chloë could follow. At this level, some responses had significant gaps within the procedure which meant that it would not be replicable. Some responses also mistakenly suggested that they would sit apart from the participants or observe through cameras. This would not be creditworthy as the question required the research to be participant observation. In addition, at this mark range some responses suggested the use of questionnaires alongside observation which is also incorrect. Responses within the higher mark ranges successfully described a procedure that would be replicable by other researchers. Most candidates at this level suggested a covert observation, and then described how this would be achieved. For example, they would suggest that the researcher should pose as a worker and sit with the participants and try and engage them in conversation whilst recording them on their phones. The behavioural categories described at this mark range were thorough and, for the most part, fully operationalised. Most responses at the higher mark range showed understanding of what is meant by a naturalistic observation although it was still slightly confused at times. Candidates’ understanding of participant observation was clear and explicit. It is essential that candidates are prepared for this question and have a clear understanding of the four required features for each method they can be asked about. This will ensure that in future series candidates are able to achieve the marks at the highest levels. (b) (i) This 2-mark question asked candidates to describe one practical/methodological strength of the procedure. To achieve the 2 marks, candidates needed to identify a strength and provide some detail about that strength. Common strengths included the use of covert observation reducing demand characteristics and operationalisation of categories which would increase the replicability/reliability of the research. Performance on this question was, in the main, good. Most responses were achieved at least 1 mark, with a significant proportion achieving both marks. The most common error, similar to previous questions, was that responses did not give enough detail to achieve the second mark. (ii) This 2-mark question asked candidates to describe one practical/methodological weakness of their procedure. To achieve the 2 marks, responses needed to identify a weakness and provide some detail about that weakness. Common weaknesses included inability to control extraneous variables and the use of overt observation increasing demand characteristics. As with the previous question, most responses were able to achieve at least 1 mark, with a significant proportion of these achieving both marks. The most common error was the lack of detail given which meant that access to the second mark for those responses was limited. In addition, some responses used weaknesses which were not linked to the procedure they had written. For this, and the previous question, it is important that candidates only use strengths and weaknesses that are explicitly linked to something they have already written in Question 10a.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 PSYCHOLOGY Paper 9990/23 Research Methods Key messages • Both the research methodology and core studies elements of the syllabus are important for this paper. Although entitled ‘Research Methods’, candidates are expected to be able to draw on their knowledge of the core studies to answer some of the questions. • Some questions only require a simple definition or description. The majority, however, also include a requirement for detail or a link, e.g., to a core study or part of a scenario. Such extensions to answers were commonly omitted. • There are some basic concepts that candidates clearly understood, but some others could have been better understood or expressed. These included concepts such as experimental and control conditions and correlations as well as matched pairs designs. • With regard to the ‘design a study’ question, candidates need to be prepared and have a clear understanding of the four required features for each method on the syllabus. General comments Many candidates seemed unable to recall knowledge of the core studies or a number of aspects of research methods. There were some topics that candidates seemed to know well, including repeated measures and operant conditioning. There was a considerable number of blank responses and scripts seen. As positive marking is used, candidates should attempt all questions even if they are unsure of the answer they are providing. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 Most candidates could define a covert observation although few gave a clear example, with most just naming the Piliavin et al. study. Question 2 The vast majority of candidates simply repeated the information from the question or gave conclusions from the study. This suggests that they had not understood the instruction to ‘Outline what these two results show.’ For the core studies, candidates need to know how the results can be interpreted. Question 3 Candidates gave a range of answers here, with some identifying key features such as the deception or the prods. Question 4 This question was generally well answered, with right-handed/left-handed and male/female being the most common answers. Often responses were too brief for full marks. For example, many candidates were able to identify that the sample was too small to be representative but did not extend this to explain why that was so i.e. to say that this would mean the sample would lack variability/diversity.
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
No data available in official reports
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
No data available in official reports
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Research Methods
Organisational work conditions
Consumer decision-making
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (Clinical Psychology)
Mood (affective) disorders: depressive disorder (unipolar) and bipolar disorder
Pain
Andrade (doodling)
The physical environment (Consumer Psychology)
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
No data available in official reports
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Self-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
Candidates need to know all components of every core study as listed in the syllabus.
- 2Message
Questions can be asked about any part of a core study.
- 3Message
Candidates need to read the whole question carefully to ensure that their responses are fulfilling the demands of each one.
- 4Message
For example, the question may require data, a named issue to be included or relate back to a previous answer.
- 5Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal E
- 6Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal E
- 7Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 P…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal E
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2024 2024
Psychology
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9990 Psychology June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 PSYCHOLOGY Paper 9990/11 Approaches, Issues and Debates Key messages Candidates need to know all components of every core study as listed in the
Candidates need to know all components of every core study as listed in the syllabus.
Questions can be asked about any part of a core study.
Candidates need to read the whole question carefully to ensure that their responses are fulfilling the demands of each one.
Examiner insights
General comments
- •The marks achieved by the candidates sitting this examination covered a wide spread of possible marks.
- •However, three-quarters of the candidates scored 27 marks or less.
- •Some candidates provided a range of excellent answers to many of the questions and could explain psychological terminology well providing evidence that they were prepared for the examination.
- •Stronger overall responses followed the demands of each question with explicit use of psychological terminology and logical, well-planned answers in evidence.
- •Appropriate examples were used from studies when the question expected it and there was evidence of candidates being able to apply their knowledge to real-world behaviours in terms of ‘what’ and…