Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level

9990 Psychology November 2021

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/11
Approaches, Issues and debates

Key messages

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. To achieve full marks, these need to be correctly present in their responses. The
essay (final question) requires four evaluation points to be in depth (two strengths and two weaknesses) with
at least one of these about the named issue. Credit is limited if the named issue is omitted or just described.

Candidates need to be careful about how they present the results of studies. For example, they need to
know if the results are about how many participants performed a task correctly or on how many trials the
participant was correct. This can have a large impact on the interpretation of results and whether a response
can gain credit.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between features of a sample and characteristics of a sample.
Characteristics are the participant variables that are presented by the sample, whereas features are anything
related to the sample, for example, characteristics, sample size, sampling technique etc.

Candidates also need to engage with any stimulus material presented in a question (for example, a novel
situation) to ensure they can access all available marks. In addition, when a question refers to ‘in this study’
the answer requires contextualisation with an explicit example from that study.

Candidates need to be able to know about real-world applications for all core studies. To show
understanding, answers need to tell the Examiner what the application is based on the particular core study
and then how this could be achieved. Again, this must be explicitly made by the candidate.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is factual and
based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported in any core study.

Candidates need to know the set procedure of studies in the order presented in the original journal article.
Questions can be based around just part of a procedure and the candidate must be able to produce an
answer that is directed and concise rather than writing about the whole of the procedure, which can
sometimes mean a candidate may run out of time for other questions.

There is enough time for answers to be planned to ensure that the response given by a candidate is focused
on the demands of each question.

General comments

The marks achieved by the candidates sitting this examination covered a wide spread of possible marks.
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 how.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) Some responses could identify the correct sample size used in the study by Bandura et al. Other
responses provided sample sizes for other core studies.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly describe the pre-study assessment of aggression in the children.
Many responses focused, incorrectly, on the measurement of aggression in the final part of the
study. It is important for candidates to read the question carefully to ensure that they are
responding with the correct part of the study.

(c) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a conclusion and a result. The former is a
generic comment based on the results reported in any core study. The latter is factual and based
on collected data. Therefore, to gain credit on this question candidates needed to give a generic
comment based around aspects like social learning or modelling. A significant minority of
responses gave a factual result based on imitative results from the study but could not gain credit
here.

Question 2

(a) For these types of questions, responses should focus on the general psychology that is being
investigated in the study rather than a specific aim of the study. Therefore, aspects of the Andrade
study that could gain credit here included dual processing, boredom, and attention. Credit could be
given to generic descriptions of the principles of either of these. However, many responses focused
too narrowly on the aims of Andrade and what she found in the study. These could only gain one
available example mark.

(b) Stronger responses covered both the identification of a strength linked to the experimental design
and then context from the study by Andrade. Popular choices included reduction in demand
characteristics and the potential lack of order effects. Some responses focused on the strengths of
using an experiment or incorrectly presented the experimental design as repeated measures.

Question 3

(a) Stronger responses could clearly outline the sampling technique used by Canli et al. Some
responses could identify volunteer sampling as the technique but then did not gain the second
available mark as they then used the word to define the word, for example, by stating ‘this meant
participants volunteered.’ This does not explicitly demonstrate understanding so cannot gain credit.
To improve, candidates need to be able to define all key terms without using that term in the
definition.

(b) Some responses could clearly outline the two questions asked from participants during the
recognition test. However, many responses tended to focus on the ratings that participants had to
give to the images, but this was from a different part of the study so could not gain credit. It is
important for candidates to know the full procedure of every Core Study and to separate out each
part of those procedures.

(c) Some responses could describe the positive correlation reported by Canli et al. However, some
responses gave a different second measure in their explanation (e.g. amygdala arousal) which was
not part of the question. These responses could only gain the mark available for identifying the type
of correlation. Other responses did not demonstrate knowledge of a what a correlation is and
described other results or separate results for the two measures in the question.

Question 4

(a) Stronger responses could clearly describe what the victim was expected to do during any trial.
Common descriptions were them falling to the ground in the critical area and remaining there until
help was given. However, many responses focused on the difference between the two types of
victim which could not gain credit as it was not answering the question set. It is important for
candidates to know all aspects of every Core Study on the syllabus to get a comprehensive

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

overview of each one. It is also important to read the question carefully to ensure that a response is
based on that part of the procedure.

(b) Many responses could identify an appropriate weakness. These could be awarded the available
mark by explicitly stating what the weakness is. Therefore, stating ‘it lacked generalisability’ could
gain the mark but simply stating ‘generalisability’ by itself could not, as the candidate had not
identified what the weakness is. Other creditworthy responses focused on lack of controls or
breaking ethical guidelines. It is important for candidates to be explicit in their responses to ensure
that they are answering the question set and so the Examiner does none of the work. To improve
on these types of questions, candidates need to be explicit in their responses as to why something
is a strength/weakness.

Question 5

(a) A minority of responses could identify two characteristics of the sample. Common choices were the
majority being female, and students. A minority of responses gave features from samples used in
other Core Studies rather than that of Laney et al. or features of Laney et al. like the sampling
technique that could not gain credit. To improve, candidates need to appreciate the difference
between features of a sample and characteristics of a sample. Characteristics are the participant
variables that are presented by the sample, whereas features are anything related to the sample,
for example, characteristics, sample size, sampling technique etc.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly outline a potential problem and then put it into the context of the
study by Laney et al. Common responses included it being fixed choice, and not predicting what a
person may actually pay in reality. Many responses could outline a generic research methods
based problem with the question about food costs but then did not give an example based on the
study itself, only gaining partial credit. To improve, candidates need to remember to explicitly link
their responses to the study named in the question to be able to access all available marks.

Question 6

(a) Weaker responses tended to describe what Alex the parrot achieved in the study which could only
gain minimal credit. Stronger responses could clearly describe many aspects of Social Learning
Theory including observation, imitation, replication, and motivation. To improve, candidates need to
be able to describe key ideas and theories linked to each Core Study in isolation from the actual
Core Study itself.

(b) For this type of question, responses must contain two parts. The first is an appropriate result. The
second is an explicit link to the concept named in the question, in this case, social learning theory.
Some responses did present an appropriate result but did not then explicitly explain why the result
could support social learning theory. Stronger responses demonstrated both parts of the question
and could clearly link back to social learning theory via the model/rival technique.

Question 7

(a) Many responses could clearly outline what was meant by informed consent. However, there was a
significant minority of responses that gave tautological answers, and these could not be credited.
For example, a response may correctly give the ‘when the participant is given enough information’
part of the ethical guideline but finish with ‘and therefore the participant can give their consent’.
Using the word to define the word cannot gain credit in an examination as it does not demonstrate
that the candidate understands the full term. To improve, candidates need to be able to define key
terminology without using the term itself.

(b) The majority of responses could identify one ethical guideline that was not broken in the study by
Dement and Kleitman. Stronger responses then used evidence directly from the study to outline
why the guideline(s) had been broken. Popular choices were confidentiality, privacy and informed
consent. Weaker responses tended to simply describe ethical guidelines without using evidence to
show how it was broken. To improve, candidates need to read the question carefully as in this
instance, the focus was on using evidence from the study.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 8

(a) Some responses could clearly outline the individual and situational explanations used in
psychology. However, a significant number of these, like with Question 7(a), used the term to
define the term. A common example was stating that the situational explanation is based around
the situation a person finds themselves in. This cannot gain credit as it does not demonstrate
understanding. Stronger responses could give clear examples from studies other than Milgram
including differences in participants’ doodling (individual: Andrade) and differences in aggression
after watching the model (situational: Bandura). Some responses used Milgram as the example
and could not gain credit. To improve, like with Question 7(a), candidates need to be able to define
key terminology without using the term itself.

(b) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is
factual and based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported
in any core study. This question was asking about both of these. Weaker responses could give
either a brief result or a brief conclusion from the study by Milgram and nothing else. However,
there were some stronger responses that could demonstrate knowledge of a conclusion from the
study and then justify this with the data collected in the study. Popular choices included that people
will follow destructive orders, and that people show overt signs of distress when being obedient.

Question 9

The strongest responses evaluated the study by Baron-Cohen et al. in depth and in terms of two strengths
and two weaknesses with at least one of these points covering the named issue of generalisations. Common
choices included types of data collected, reliability, validity, generalisability, and ethics. These strong
responses could explain why an element of the study was a strength or a weakness using specific examples
from the study by Baron-Cohen et al. to explicitly support their point and tended to score Level 4 marks.
Candidates need to ensure that they follow the demands of the question, covering two strengths and two
weaknesses, all in equal depth. Some responses did cover the four evaluation points but were brief or did
not use the study by Baron-Cohen et al. as examples which meant the response scored in the lower bands.
Other responses included three evaluation points that were thorough, logical, and well argued with a fourth
point that was brief which meant the response did not reach the top band in the main. Candidates need to
know that any description of the study does not gain credit in these type of questions as it is testing their
evaluation skills only. In addition, some candidates followed a GRAVE approach to this question
(Generalisability, Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics). Therefore, some responses appeared to be
prepared essays for Baron-Cohen et al. A response that does not have one evaluation point about the
named issue can only score Level 3 (6 marks) maximum. There were many responses that briefly outlined
strengths and weaknesses with only some being in context, which are Level 2 responses. Any response that
has no context cannot get above a Level 1 mark. In addition, some responses did use generalisability in an
evaluative sense but did not fully explain why it could be a strength and/or a weakness. Stronger responses
could identify the potential weakness of the demographics of any of the four groups and then give more than
one example from the study making it ‘in detail’. Some responses did not cover the named issue, only
describing what generalisations mean or describing the different groups which could not gain credit. To
improve on this question, candidates need to plan carefully, choosing two strengths and two weaknesses
with one of these being the named issue. Each strength and weakness should be of equal length with an
explanation as to why it is a strength or weakness with examples from the study to demonstrate clear
understanding. These are the requirements for a Level 4 response.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/12
Approaches, issues and debates

Key messages

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. To achieve full marks, these need to be correctly present in their responses. The
essay (final question) requires four evaluation points to be in depth (two strengths and two weaknesses) with
at least one of these about the named issue. Credit is limited if the named issue is omitted or just described.

Candidates need to be careful about how they present the results of studies. For example, they need to
know if the results are about how many participants performed a task correctly or on how many trials the
participant was correct. This can have a large impact on the interpretation of results and whether a response
can gain credit.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between features of a sample and characteristics of a sample.
Characteristics are the participant variables that are presented by the sample, whereas features are anything
related to the sample, for example, characteristics, sample size, sampling technique etc.

Candidates also need to engage with any stimulus material presented in a question (for example, a novel
situation) to ensure they can access all available marks. In addition, when a question refers to ‘in this study’
the answer requires contextualisation with an explicit example from that study.

Candidates need to be able to know about real-world applications for all core studies. To show
understanding, answers need to tell the Examiner what the application is based on the particular core study
and then how this could be achieved. Again, this must be explicitly made by the candidate.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is factual and
based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported in any core study.

Candidates need to know the set procedure of studies in the order presented in the original journal article.
Questions can be based around just part of a procedure and the candidate must be able to produce an
answer that is directed and concise rather than writing about the whole of the procedure, which can
sometimes mean a candidate may run out of time for other questions.

There is enough time for answers to be planned to ensure that the response given by a candidate is focused
on the demands of each question.

General comments

The marks achieved by the candidates sitting this examination covered a wide spread of possible marks.
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 how.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) The majority of responses could identify his mother as the cause of positive reinforcement.
Incorrect responses included a therapist and Saavedra.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly name two of the stimuli fully. Many responses either simply stated
‘button’ or only part of the stimuli used in the fear hierarchy. Credit could only be given to full
naming of the five types of buttons.

(c) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a conclusion and a result. The former is a
generic comment based on the results reported in any core study. The latter is factual and based
on collected data. Therefore, to gain credit on this question, candidates needed to give a generic
comment based around helping the boy with his phobia. A significant minority of responses gave a
factual result based on distress scores but could not gain credit here.

Question 2

(a) For these types of questions, responses should focus on the general psychology that is being
investigated in the study rather than a specific aim of the study. Therefore, aspects of the
Pepperberg study that could gain credit here included social learning theory and operant
conditioning. Credit could be given to generic descriptions of the principles of either of these.
However, many responses focused too narrowly on the aims of Pepperberg and what she achieved
with Alex the parrot. These could only gain one available example mark.

(b) Stronger responses covered both the identification of a strength linked to validity and then context
from the study by Pepperberg. Popular choices included the reduction of researcher bias and the
use of controls for internal validity. Some responses mixed controls with standardisation (reliability)
so could not gain credit here.

Question 3

(a) There were very few correct responses to this question. Stronger responses could clearly outline
two reasons for a relationship before the study by Canli et al. The majority of responses gave
explanations about the findings from the actual study by Canli et al., but the question was not
asking for this. It is very important that candidates know the background of each core study found
in the introduction of each journal paper to ensure they understand the process involved in each
one from beginning to end. This includes knowing some of the reasons why a study was
conducted.

(b) Some responses could describe the negative correlation reported by Canli et al. due to the way the
scale was measure for valence. It is important that candidates understand how a measure is
scored in any core study as it may go against a logical format. This is the case here. The majority
of responses reported it as a positive correlation which, because of how valence was scored, is
incorrect.

Question 4

(a) Stronger responses could clearly describe the familiarisation phase of the study. Common
descriptions included being able to freely manipulate tools and how long each phase lasted for.
However, the majority of responses described either the Can See or the Cannot See condition. It is
important for candidates to know all aspects of every Core Study on the syllabus to get a
comprehensive overview of each one.

(b) Stronger responses could fully outline both possible outcomes that ended a trial. Many responses
could only partially outline an outcome so could not gain credit. For example, one possible outcome
was when the recipient chimpanzee received the correct tool and obtained the juice reward.
Outlining the first part only could not gain credit as this did not mean a trial had ended. Again,
candidates need to know how all aspects of every Core Study were measured and operationalised.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) Many responses could identify an appropriate methodological weakness. These could be awarded
the available mark by explicitly stating what the weakness is. Therefore, stating ‘it lacked ecological
validity’ could gain the mark but simply stating ‘ecological validity’ by itself could not as the
candidate had not identified what the weakness is. Other creditworthy responses focused on
generalisability and repeated measures. It is important for candidates to be explicit in their
responses to ensure that they are answering the question set and so the Examiner does none of
the work. To improve on these types of questions, candidates need to be explicit in their responses
as to why something is a strength/weakness.

Question 5

(a) The majority of responses could identify two features of the sample. Common choices were being
volunteers, the sample size and that they were all male. A minority of responses gave features
from samples used in other Core Studies rather than that of Schachter and Singer.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly outline a potential problem and then put it into the context of the
study by Schachter and Singer. Common responses included it being subjective and not predicting
what a person is actually feeling. Many responses could outline a generic research methods based
problem with the question about mood but then did not give an example based on the study itself,
only gaining partial credit. To improve, candidates need to explicitly link their responses to the
study named in the question to be able to access all available marks.

Question 6

(a) Weaker responses tended to describe the eyes test and how it works which could only gain
minimal credit. Stronger responses could clearly describe many aspects of Theory of Mind
including attribution of mental states and aspects of empathy. To improve, candidates need to be
able to describe key ideas and theories linked to each Core Study in isolation from the actual Core
Study itself.

(b) For this type of question, responses must contain two parts. The first is the ‘what’ – what real-world
application could be. The second is the ‘how’ – how will the real-world application be achieved in
an ethical way. Common responses included using the eyes test as a diagnostic tool and using the
eyes test to help people understand emotions better in the classroom.

Question 7

(a) Many responses could clearly outline what was meant by informed consent. However, there was a
significant minority of responses that gave tautological answers, and these could not be credited.
For example, a response may correctly give the ‘when the participant is given enough information’
part of the ethical guideline but finish with ‘and therefore the participant can give their consent’.
Using the word to define the word cannot gain credit in an examination as it does not demonstrate
that the candidate understands the full term. To improve, candidates need to be able to define key
terminology without using the term itself.

(b) The majority of responses could identify one ethical guideline that was broken in the study by
Milgram. Stronger responses then used evidence directly from the study to outline why the
guideline(s) had been broken. Popular choices were deception, psychological stress, and the right
to withdraw. Weaker responses tended to simply describe ethical guidelines without using evidence
to show how it was broken. To improve, candidates need to read the question carefully as in this
instance, the focus was on using evidence from the study.

Question 8

(a) Some responses could clearly outline the individual and situational explanations used in
psychology. However, a significant number of these, like with Question 7(a), used the term to
define the term. A common example was stating that the situational explanation is based around
the situation a person finds themselves in. This cannot gain credit as it does not demonstrate
understanding. Stronger responses could give clear examples from the study by Dement and
Kleitman with different dream content (individual) and being in a laboratory (situational) being
popular choices. To improve, like with Question 7(a), candidates need to be able to define key
terminology without using the term itself.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is
factual and based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported
in any core study. This question was asking about both of these. Weaker responses could give
either a brief result or a brief conclusion from the study by Dement and Kleitman and nothing else.
However, there were some stronger responses that could demonstrate knowledge of a conclusion
from the study and then justify this with the data collected in the study. Popular choices included
people tending to dream more in REM and that eye movements in dreams could be linked to
content of the dream.

Question 9

The strongest responses evaluated the study by Bandura et al. in depth and in terms of two strengths and
two weaknesses with at least one of these points covering the named issue of quantitative data. Common
choices included types of data collected, reliability, validity, generalisability, and ethics. These strong
responses could explain why an element of the study was a strength or a weakness using specific examples
from the study by Bandura et al. to explicitly support their point and tended to score Level 4 marks.
Candidates need to ensure that they follow the demands of the question, covering two strengths and two
weaknesses, all in equal depth. Some responses did cover the four evaluation points but were brief or did
not use the study by Bandura et al. as examples which meant the response scored in the lower bands. Other
responses included three evaluation points that were thorough, logical, and well argued with a fourth point
that was brief which meant the response did not reach the top band in the main. Candidates need to know
that any description of the study does not gain credit in these type of questions as it is testing their evaluation
skills only. In addition, some candidates followed a GRAVE approach to this question (Generalisability,
Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics). Therefore, some responses appeared to be prepared essays for
Bandura et al. without one of their points being about quantitative data. A response that does not have one
evaluation point about the named issue can only score Level 3 (6 marks) maximum. There were many
responses that briefly outlined strengths and weaknesses with only some being in context which is a Level 2
response. Any response that has no context cannot get above a Level 1 mark. In addition, many responses
did use quantitative in an evaluative sense but did not fully explain why it could be a strength and/or a
weakness. Stronger responses could identify the potential strength of ease of comparison or objectivity and
then give more than one example from the study making it ‘in detail’. Several responses did not cover the
named issue, only describing what quantitative data is or incorrectly evaluated the named issue by giving
strengths/weaknesses of qualitative data. To improve on this question, candidates need to plan carefully,
choosing two strengths and two weaknesses with one of these being the named issue. Each strength and
weakness should be of equal length with an explanation as to why it is a strength or weakness with
examples from the study to show clear understanding. These are the requirements for a Level 4 response.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/13
Approaches, Issues and Debates

Key messages

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. To achieve full marks, these need to be correctly present in their responses. The
essay (final question) requires four evaluation points to be in depth (two strengths and two weaknesses) with
at least one of these about the named issue. Credit is limited if the named issue is omitted or just described.

Candidates need to be careful about how they present the results of studies. For example, they need to
know if the results are about how many participants performed a task correctly or on how many trials the
participant was correct. This can have a large impact on the interpretation of results and whether a response
can gain credit.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between features of a sample and characteristics of a sample.
Characteristics are the participant variables that are presented by the sample, whereas features are anything
related to the sample, for example, characteristics, sample size, sampling technique etc.

Candidates also need to engage with any stimulus material presented in a question (for example, a novel
situation) to ensure they can access all available marks. In addition, when a question refers to ‘in this study’
the answer requires contextualisation with an explicit example from that study.

Candidates need to be able to know about real-world applications for all core studies. To show
understanding, answers need to tell the Examiner what the application is based on the particular core study
and then how this could be achieved. Again, this must be explicitly made by the candidate.

Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is factual and
based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported in any core study.

Candidates need to know the set procedure of studies in the order presented in the original journal article.
Questions can be based around just part of a procedure and the candidate must be able to produce an
answer that is directed and concise rather than writing about the whole of the procedure, which can
sometimes mean a candidate may run out of time for other questions.

There is enough time for answers to be planned to ensure that the response given by a candidate is focused
on the demands of each question.

General comments

The marks achieved by the candidates sitting this examination covered a wide spread of possible marks.
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 how.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) Some responses could identify the correct sample size used in the study by Andrade. Other
responses provided sample sizes for other core studies.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly identify two features of the mock telephone message. Some
responses focused, incorrectly, on the doodling aspect of the procedure. It is important for
candidates to read the question carefully to ensure that they are responding with the correct part of
the study.

(c) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a conclusion and a result. The former is a
generic comment based on the results reported in any core study. The latter is factual and based
on collected data. Therefore, to gain credit on this question, candidates needed to give a generic
comment based around aspects like dual-processing and how doodling can focus attention. A
significant minority of responses gave a factual result based on recall of results from the study but
could not gain credit here.

Question 2

(a) For these types of questions, responses should focus on the general psychology that is being
investigated in the study rather than a specific aim of the study. Therefore, aspects of the
Yamamoto et al. study that could gain credit here included empathy, altruism and targeting helping.
Credit could be given to generic descriptions of the principles of either of these. However, some
responses focused too narrowly on the aims of Yamamoto et al. and what they found in the study.
These could only gain one available example mark.

(b) Stronger responses covered both the identification of a strength linked to validity and then context
from the study by Yamamoto et al. Popular choices included cause and effect, and the reduction of
extraneous variables. Some responses focused on the strengths of using an experiment or
incorrectly debated standardisation and reliability.

Question 3

(a) Stronger responses could clearly outline the sampling technique used by Canli et al. Some
responses could identify volunteer sampling as the technique but did not gain the second available
mark as they then used the word to define the word, for example, by stating ‘this meant participants
volunteered.’ This does not explicitly demonstrate understanding so cannot gain credit. To improve,
candidates need to be able to define all key terms without using that term in the definition.

(b) The majority of responses scored at least one mark for identifying one of the characteristics of the
victim (learner). Popular choices included being male and that he was mild-mannered. There were
a significant minority of responses that reported characteristics of the sample used in the study by
Milgram or of the experimenter who gave the prods. It is important that candidates clearly know the
role of all people involved in the set-up of this particular study.

(c) Some responses could describe two changes to the shock generator. Popular choices were an
electrical buzzing noise and that the switch remained down. However, there were several
responses that described what the victim said during the procedure or how the shock generator
was used, for example, it went up in 15-volt increments. To improve, candidates should know how
all of the materials in the study worked to make everything appear to be genuine.

Question 4

(a) There were many strong responses that could clearly describe what participants had to do during
their brain scans. Common descriptions included the number of scenes, how long they were
projected for, and how the participant had to rate each scene. However, some responses focused
on a different part of the procedure, for example, the recognition task. It is important for candidates
to know all aspects of every Core Study on the syllabus to get a comprehensive overview of each
one. It is also important to read the question carefully to ensure that a response is based on that
part of the procedure.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) Many responses could identify an appropriate methodological weakness. These could be awarded
the available mark by explicitly stating what the weakness is. Therefore, stating it lacked
generalisability could gain the mark but simply stating generalisability by itself could not as the
candidate had not identified what the weakness is. Other creditworthy responses focused on lack
of ecological validity. It is important for candidates to be explicit in their responses to ensure that
they are answering the question set and so the Examiner does none of the work. To improve on
these types of questions, candidates need to be explicit in their responses as to why something is a
strength/weakness.

Question 5

(a) A majority of responses could identify two characteristics of the sample. Common choices were
them being candidates and having assumed high IQ scores. However, some responses gave
features from another group in the Baron-Cohen et al. study, rather than Group 3. Some responses
also stated males and females, but this was in the question so could not gain credit. To improve,
candidates need to appreciate the difference between features of a sample and characteristics of a
sample. Characteristics are the participant variables that are presented by the sample, whereas
features are anything related to the sample, for example, characteristics, sample size, sampling
technique etc.

(b) Stronger responses could clearly outline a potential problem and then put it into the context of the
study by Baron-Cohen et al. Common responses included the eyes being static and that people
could simply guess correctly. Many responses could outline a generic research methods based
problem with the eyes test but then did not give an example based on the study itself, only gaining
partial credit. To improve, candidates need to remember to explicitly link their responses to the
study named in the question to be able to access all available marks.

Question 6

(a) Weaker responses tended to describe parts of the procedure from the study by Schachter and
Singer. Stronger responses could clearly describe the two-factor theory of emotion sometimes with
examples for elaboration. These answers demonstrated knowledge of the psychology being
investigated in this study. To improve, candidates need to be able to describe key ideas and
theories linked to each Core Study in isolation from the actual Core Study itself.

(b) For this type of question, responses must contain two parts. The first is an appropriate result. The
second is an explicit link to the concept named in the question, in this case, two-factor theory of
emotion. Some responses did present an appropriate result but did not then explicitly explain why
the result could support the two-factor theory of emotion. Stronger responses demonstrated both
parts of the question and could clearly link back to theory usually by explaining how the
conditions/groups were set-up in the study.

Question 7

(a) Many responses could clearly outline what was meant by informed consent. However, there was a
significant minority of responses that gave tautological answers, and these could not be credited.
For example, a response may correctly give the ‘when the participant is given enough information’
part of the ethical guideline but finish with ‘and therefore the participant can give their consent’.
Using the word to define the word cannot gain credit in an examination as it does not demonstrate
that the candidate understands the full term. To improve, candidates need to be able to define key
terminology without using the term itself.

(b) The majority of responses could identify one ethical guideline that was broken in the study by
Laney et al. Stronger responses then used evidence directly from the study to outline why the
guideline(s) had been broken. Popular choices were deception, psychological stress, and the lack
of informed consent. Weaker responses tended to simply describe ethical guidelines without using
evidence to show how it was broken. To improve, candidates need to read the question carefully as
in this instance, the focus was on using evidence from the study.

Question 8

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(a) Some responses could clearly outline the nature versus nurture debate used in psychology.
However, a significant number of these, like with Question 7(a), used the term to define the term.
A common example was stating that nurture is based around nurturing a human being. This cannot
gain credit as it does not demonstrate understanding. Stronger responses could give clear
examples from studies other than Bandura et al. including amygdala activation (nature: Canli et al.)
and learning through observation and the model/rival technique (nurture: Pepperberg). Some
responses used Bandura et al. as the example and could not gain credit. To improve, like with
Question 7(a), candidates need to be able to define key terminology without using the term itself.

(b) Candidates need to appreciate the difference between a result and a conclusion. The former is
factual and based on collected data. The latter is a generic comment based on the results reported
in any core study. This question was asking about both of these. Weaker responses could give
either a brief result or a brief conclusion from the study by Bandura et al. and nothing else.
However, there were some stronger responses that could demonstrate knowledge of a conclusion
from the study and then justify this with the data collected in the study. Popular choices included
learning aggression via social learning and more likely from a same-sex model.

Question 9

The strongest responses evaluated the study by Piliavin et al. in depth and in terms of two strengths and two
weaknesses with at least one of these points covering the named issue of qualitative data. Common choices
included types of data collected, reliability, validity, generalisability, and ethics. These strong responses
could explain why an element of the study was a strength or a weakness using specific examples from the
study by Piliavin et al. to explicitly support their point and tended to score Level 4 marks. Candidates need to
ensure that they follow the demands of the question, covering two strengths and two weaknesses, all in
equal depth. Some responses did cover the four evaluation points but were brief or did not use the study by
Piliavin et al. as examples which meant the response scored in the lower bands. Other responses included
three evaluation points that were thorough, logical, and well argued with a fourth point that was brief which
meant the response did not reach the top band in the main. Candidates need to know that any description of
the study does not gain credit in these type of questions as it is testing their evaluation skills only. In addition,
some candidates followed a GRAVE approach to this question (Generalisability, Reliability, Application,
Validity, Ethics). Therefore, some responses appeared to be prepared essays for Piliavin et al. without one of
their points being about qualitative data. A response that does not have one evaluation point about the
named issue can only score Level 3 (6 marks) maximum. There were many responses that briefly outlined
strengths and weaknesses with only some being in context which is a Level 2 response. Any response that
has no context cannot get above a Level 1 mark. In addition, many responses did use qualitative data in an
evaluative sense but did not fully explain why it could be a strength and/or a weakness. Stronger responses
could identify the potential strength of gaining a more comprehensive explanation for helping/not helping and
then give more than one example from the study making it ‘in detail’. Several responses did not cover the
named issue, only describing what qualitative data is or incorrectly evaluated the named issue by giving
strengths/weaknesses of quantitative data. To improve on this question, candidates need to plan carefully,
choosing two strengths and two weaknesses with one of these being the named issue. Each strength and
weakness should be of equal length with an explanation as to why it is a strength or weakness with
examples from the study to show clear understanding. These are the requirements for a Level 4 response.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/21
Research Methods

Key messages

• This research methods paper asks candidates to answer a range of questions, including ones about the
core studies in relation to research methods, terms and concepts used to describe or evaluate research
methodology. However, many candidates sitting this paper found demonstrating such understanding
very challenging. In the absence of knowledge about fundamental concepts such as research methods,
many candidates merely repeated the information in the question, for example saying that ‘A
questionnaire is a self-report method because the participant self-reports’. Similarly, in the absence of
detailed knowledge about concepts, candidates often presented brief or irrelevant material that was
connected to the question but did not answer it. For example, rather than outlining the concept of inter-
rater reliability as required by the question, many candidates described how to test it or merely defined
reliability.
• This paper expects candidates to apply their understanding to both familiar and unfamiliar contexts.
Where some knowledge was evident, for example being able to identify a relevant study, candidates
were often unable to link that knowledge to demonstrate why the study was relevant to the question.
• It is critical that candidates read and follow the instructions given in the question. These include reading
and following the command words and applying concepts directly to novel scenarios. For example,
when asked about problems of using a scale to measure memory, many responses focused on
problems of studying memory rather than problems of using a scale as required by the question or
made irrelevant comments about dreaming rather than memory. Similarly, in questions asking for
definitions, candidates often repeated the question or gave an example in place of explaining what the
term meant.

General comments

Candidates were often unable to access marks. Many responses suggested a lack of accurate knowledge
and understanding or the skills needed to link responses to the scenarios, thus limiting performance as a
whole.

Candidates across the ability range were able to demonstrate some knowledge of a range of aspects of
research methods in this paper. Success was greater on some straightforward questions, such as graph
plotting in Question 4, ethics in Question 8(a)(i) and identification of data type in Question 9(b), than on
more demanding questions, such as Questions 9(c)(ii) and 10. However, there were also some more
straightforward questions which candidates found challenging, such as 2, 3, 6 and 7(a).

Where questions require linking, such as to provide an example or to relate to a study, candidates were often
able to earn partial marks for an initial identification of a relevant fact, such as laboratory and field
experiments in Question 6, but were then unable to provide detail or link this information correctly to an
example.

Although there were a few excellent answers to Questions 10(a) and 10(b), in general they were rarely well
answered. In particular, understanding of ‘semi-structured’ was often confused, with responses suggesting
that it referred to open and closed questions. Such responses therefore lacked the necessary relevant detail.
To ensure that candidates are able to provide the necessary, relevant detail for each research method it is
important that they have both the underpinning knowledge and have practised this high-level skill. It is most
readily developed through practical work with designing and conducting small studies or through practice
with novel scenarios.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) Part (a) was generally answered well, with most candidates able to identify that the data comes
directly from the participant and all that data is written down. However, examples were more poorly
done, with many candidates simply naming a study without giving any details of the questionnaire,
thus not fulfilling the requirements of the question. Some identified studies such as Dement and
Kleitman which did not use a questionnaire.

Responses which presented a circular argument, saying that ‘A questionnaire is a self-report

method because the participant self-reports’, did not earn credit.

(b) This question part was not well answered. Many candidates suggested that strength of using
questionnaires was that they could collect qualitative and quantitative data. This is an accurate fact
but is descriptive rather than evaluative. Those candidates who attempted to add detail to this
argument often suggested that interviews could not collect quantitative data, which is inaccurate.

Another common error was to suggest that using questionnaires was ‘faster’ or ‘faster than
interviews’. As a statement, this alone is insufficient, and needed justification. Such justification
could, for example, have been given by saying that many participants can answer a questionnaire
at the same time, so a large sample can be obtained and that this, in turn, would increase the
generalisability of the results.

Question 2

This question was not well answered, with only a small number of responses offering clear null hypotheses.
Many candidates said, ‘no correlation’ rather than ‘no difference’ and many showed little knowledge or
understanding of the study.

Question 3

(a) Although here were some good answers, many candidates talked about the process of comparing
rather than the agreement itself, i.e. outlined how to test for inter-rater reliability rather than
outlining the concept.

Another common mistake was to define reliability rather than inter-rater reliability as required by the
question.

(b) Most answers to part (b) were descriptions of aspects of the study unrelated to inter-rater
reliability, so were not answering the question and could not be credited. There were, however, a
small minority of very good answers describing the use of clearly specified categories as a way of
ensuring inter-rater reliability. In addition, some candidates appropriately identified making
observations at standardised intervals of five seconds as a factor improving reliability.

Question 4

Although this question was well answered by the majority of candidates. There were many indications of
difficulties with graph drawing. Many candidates appeared not know what a bar graph is, for example
drawing the bars touching, and axis labels often inaccurate or absent. Most candidates did attempt this
question even when they left many other questions blank.

Question 5

This question was poorly answered with many responses focusing on problems of studying memory rather
than problems of using a scale to measure memory. A small number of answers did appropriately discuss
the lack of operationalisation or the subjective nature of the rating. In addition, there were many irrelevant
answers here, with candidates referring to dreaming rather than memory.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 6

There were some good answers to this question although many described laboratory experiments as taking
place in a laboratory and field experiments as taking place in a field (circular and incorrect respectively). In
addition, candidates often incorrectly stated that laboratory experiment take place in a ‘closed environment’
or, conversely, (and also incorrectly) that field experiments are conducted in open environments or public
places.

Many candidates confused field experiments with natural experiments. Another common error was to offer
Milgram as an example of a laboratory experiment. Furthermore, many candidates simply named studies as
examples rather than giving any details relating to their use as an instance of a laboratory experiment or as a
field experiment.

Question 7

(a) The majority of candidates gave incorrect or incomplete answers to this question. Responses to
this question part often scored one mark rather than two most as candidates simply identifying
depth or detail. Many other candidates suggested a case study can collect ‘more data’, which could
not be credited.

A very small minority of candidates explained that case studies can use multiple methods or can
triangulate methods to improve validity, such as by using observations, interviews with the
individual and questionnaires for relatives (or colleagues/friends).

(b) There were some good answers to part (b) although the link to the study was not always present
and there were some irrelevant suggestions such as not actually meeting the woman or generic
ethical issues. A small number of candidates simply stated terms such as ‘lacks validity’ or offered
sampling/generalisability issues for both answers.

Question 8

(a) There were many good answers to Question 8(a), but candidates sometimes confused question
parts (between practical and ethical issues) and often offered consent for the first question implying
that no consent would be required for a laboratory study. Practical issues for part (ii) were
occasionally cost or time – non psychological issues – rather than relevant issues such as
ecological validity. Answers were often written ‘the wrong way round’, so rather than explaining a
benefit of using a laboratory the candidate gave a limitation of not using a laboratory. Such
answers were credited, although answering the question explicitly is in the candidate’s best
interest, answering implicitly should be avoided. Many responses for the three part (a) questions
were generic instead of being linked to this study.

(b) The answers to part (b) were generally good, with the majority of candidates able to explain that
correlation is not causation and offer suggestions for other variables.

Question 9

(a) (i) Candidates demonstrated considerable confusion between participant/non-participant observation

and covert/overt observation. This limited overall scores on parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii).

(ii) This confusion resulted in many (incorrect) responses making reference to being covert or hidden,
and the effect this would have on the chances of responding to demand characteristics, which is
not directly relevant.

Even the better answers, offering relevant advantages, were often generic rather than applied to
the context in Question 9.

(b) The majority of candidates identified ‘quantitative’ for the first mark in answer to Question 9(b)
although a significant minority of responses stated that this was qualitative data. In general, this
was where they went on to say that gender was not a number. A small minority of candidates
simply said observational data.

(c) (i) Many candidates did not answer this question part well, often using the word ‘situation’ in their
definition of a situational variable, and many simply said it was an uncontrolled variable. Other

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

responses did not answer the question, simply giving an example, such as ‘the weather’, rather
than providing the meaning of the concept.

(ii) A small minority of candidates provided thoughtful answers, such as suggesting that the weather
might be a situational variable causing helping to be difficult if people were carrying umbrellas or
raincoats in the library making carrying books difficult. Some candidates described participant
variables in part (ii) of this question and some described more general issues with the observation,
neither of which were creditworthy. There was also a tendency for responses to relate to sampling,
not to results, so no credit could be earned.

There was a further problem suggesting that the concept was poorly understood. Many candidates
were suggesting participant variables or factors affecting the sample size rather than the influence
of environmental variables on the behaviour or responses of participants.

Question 10

(a) This question part was not well answered although there were some good answers, in which
candidates understood semi-structured interviews so were able to score very high marks. However,
many responses suggested that candidates believe that ‘semi-structured’ refers to both open and
closed questions, and some used the terms ‘structured and unstructured questions’.

The problem of the research method was further illustrated by the number of candidates who
unnecessarily, and often detrimentally, referred to – and described – irrelevant methods, including
laboratory experiments, field experiments, natural experiments, questionnaires and case studies.

Candidates were often unable to progress beyond Level 1 and, even when candidates did give
these details, they tended to forget to mention the types of questions (open or closed). This meant
that they were unable to access the marks for detail about the ‘style of questions’ meaning that
they could not access the Level 3 scores. Many candidates referred to experiments, independent
and dependent variables, independent and repeated measures (because they asked more than
one participant), observations and questionnaires, and random sampling when they meant
opportunity. For example, common (incorrect) phrases were ‘Random pedestrians’, ‘Random
sampling of whatever people are walking by’ and ‘Pedestrians walking randomly on the street’.
Overall, many candidates were not able to move out of level 1.

(b) Part (b) of this question was also poorly answered. It produced a significant number of answers
focusing on sampling or ethics and many suggested the use of alternative (non self-report)
methods. Many candidates needed to note the rubric saying: Do not refer to ethics or sampling in
your answer.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/22
Research Methods

Key messages

This question paper asks candidates to answer a range of questions, including ones about the core studies,
in relation to research methods, terms and concepts used to describe or evaluate research methodology,
and application of this knowledge to both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. These types of questions require
candidates to use a variety of skills. Some of the responses showed that the candidates were not well
prepared for each of these skills and it would be beneficial to encourage them to prepare, especially for
demonstrating knowledge of concepts and the application of this knowledge.

Ability to apply knowledge and understanding to novel scenarios is essential to help candidates to
successfully complete this paper. This skill can help candidates in two ways:
• Candidates should be able to apply research methods, terms and concepts to scenarios presented in
questions. These can include, for example, planning, criticising or developing designs or analysing data.
• Candidates should be aware of questions which require a link. When a question includes ‘in this study’,
or makes a direct reference to the scenario, responses should go beyond describing or evaluating, the
answer must also be contextualised in a relevant way. Practice could help candidates to learn both how
to extract relevant ideas, and how to make novel suggestions based on scenarios.

Question 10 in this paper requires candidates to produce an original design for a novel research question.
This ‘creative’ process requires practice and it is, therefore, important that candidates understand the basic
research methods well and that they respond to the question by using the method stipulated by the question.
Furthermore, to learn to identify flaws in a design (whether their own, as in Question 10, or one from a novel
scenario, for example, in Section B) candidates should have had the experience of practical problems in
conducting studies. This is a high-level skill and can be developed through practical work with designing and
conducting small studies, or through practice with novel scenarios. Candidates should be familiar with the
overall structure of Question 10(a), which can be closely tailored to requirements of an individual question,
such as the required research methods and the scenario.

General comments

In general, candidate responses achieved marks across the whole range of available marks for this paper.
However, very few responses consistently and accurately demonstrated knowledge and understanding, or
achieved the additional marks for linking the response to the scenarios, thus limiting marks achieved overall.
Some of the candidate responses showed a good grasp of a range of psychological concepts and, therefore,
achieved the basic marks.

Some of the questions required a link, for example, to a study. These included Questions 1(a), 1(b), 3(b), 5,
7(e), 8(c)(i), 9(b)(i) where candidate responses sometimes achieved partial marks for an initial identification
of a relevant fact but failed to score the second mark because the answer was not linked. See Questions 7
and 9 below for further detail. Candidates should always read the stem of the question and they should link
any answer to the study the question is about. If the question is about a study being conducted, such as
Questions 7, 8 and 9 the same applies: the answers to question parts should be related to the study being
conducted.

There were some strong answers to question 10, although many responses brought in features of an
experiment even though the question required the planning of a structured interview. This was not
necessary, and, consequently, the response lacked the necessary relevant methodological features of a
structured interview that were required to achieve higher credit. Many answers began with the selection of
participants, often done in extensive detail. Whilst sampling is a relevant feature, it is only a minor feature
and could be written about in less detail with more time allocated to the major features of the method.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) This question required the identification of the sampling technique. Many candidates achieved full
marks by stating that it was volunteer sampling (or self-selecting sampling). Some candidates
suggested incorrectly that it was opportunity sampling and a few, also incorrectly, claimed it was
random sampling.

(b) This question required an explanation, and so required some detail in the answer. Answers scoring
full marks explained that participants were taken from the subject pool because they had
volunteered to participate in studies; that they were students from the University of Minnesota, or
that they were introductory psychology students. Also creditworthy was that they gained two extra
points in the final exam for participating. A few candidates wrote a general answer about volunteer
sampling, and needed to focus their response as the question asked about the Schachter and
Singer study. These answers could not be credited.

(c) Health checks were done on the participants to protect them from harm or because the checks
avoided risks. Many candidates wrote answers like this and scored one mark. In order to achieve
the second mark, the answer needed to be related to the Schachter and Singer study. Many
candidates scored the second available mark by writing, for example, ‘so they would not be harmed
by the injection’, or similarly ‘so they would not be harmed by the effects of the adrenaline’.

Question 2

(a) Many candidates appeared to be looking for a more complex answer than the question required
and were not all able to identify the sample and population from the information provided. Both
question parts needed to be correct to score the 1 mark allocated to the question.

(b) Many candidates successfully scored full marks for this question part. Most candidates scored one
mark for stating a reason, typically ‘the sample was not representative’, but again, the answer had
to be related to the study to score full marks. Candidates who scored full marks wrote answers like
‘the sample was not representative because the 72 children in the study were from the same
Stanford nursery school probably with intelligent, wealthy parents, which is not typical of most other
children.’

Question 3

(a) Subjectivity is the effect of a personal viewpoint/opinion/bias on data collection or interpretation.

Candidates stating this, or words to the same effect, scored the one allocated mark.

(b) Answers to this question illustrated the need for candidates to relate their answers to the study in
question. The words ‘in (or for) this study’ is the trigger to do this. If the ‘in this study’ component is
absent, then full marks cannot be awarded. For this question, most answers suggested that
qualitative data could be gathered by using an interview or questionnaire, and one mark was
awarded. Some answers went no further; other answers suggested using an open question but
then gave an example of a closed question (which gives quantitative data). Answers scoring the
further mark suggested: ‘ask an open question such as describe how you feel on your birthday’.

Question 4

(a) Some candidates did not score marks for two reasons: they did not know what a standard deviation
was and/or they did not relate standard deviation to the results of the Baron-Cohen et al. study.
Many candidates merely described the words and numbers in the table (e.g. the AS/HFA group
scored 6.0 which is higher the IQ group score of 2.9) rather than explaining what the results meant.
An answer scoring full marks might be, for example: ‘standard deviation is about the spread of
scores from the mean, so the AS/HFA group score of 6.0 shows they were more spread out in their
AQ scores than the IQ matched group’.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 5

(a) This question required three components to score the available three marks: an explanation of the
term ‘operationalisation’, how this applied to the IV and how this applied to the DV of the Piliavin et
al. study. Many candidates provided very strong answers and scored full marks. The term
operationalisation means clearly defining a variable so it can be accurately manipulated, measured
or replicated. In this instance the IV was drunk or ill, with drunk being operationalised as carrying a
bottle in a bag, and ill being operationalised by the carrying of a cane. The DV wasn’t just ‘helping’,
it was operationalised as spontaneous helping, which is helping before the model.

Question 6

Most candidates were able to describe the terms reliability and validity successfully. A number of candidates
opted to give further definitions of the different types of reliability and validity, and this was generally a
rewarding strategy. For example, some described test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability. For validity
some described concurrent validity, and ecological validity was often included. An alternative strategy was to
provide examples from studies, and relevant studies such as that by Bandura et al. were used. The most
successful strategy, which often earned full marks, was to give definitions of the terms, describe different
types and then give examples of the types.

Question 7

Candidates should always be mindful that the introduction to the question, the stem, applies to all question
parts which follow.

(a) Nearly all candidates answered this question part correctly when stating that the IV was the
‘lighting level’, ‘bright lighting and dim lighting’ and even ‘lighting’ was sufficient for one mark. A few
candidates stated the DV which was incorrect.

(b) Nearly all candidates were awarded one mark for their DV answer. Most typically ‘attention’ and
‘score on the attention (or listening) task’ were creditworthy. A few candidates repeated the stem
‘the effects of lighting on attention’ and a few candidates provided the IV.

(c) All three question parts, (c)(i), (ii) and (iii) are linked. Candidates suggesting a relevant variable for
(i) nearly always went on to suggest how this could be controlled (ii), and why it should be
controlled (iii). The suggested variable could be of any type, such as a situational variable or a
participant variable. An answer scoring full marks might be (i) a situational variable, such as
‘background light would need to be controlled. (ii) This might be done by all participants being
tested in the same darkened room and this (iii) would ensure that the IV of bright and dim lighting
was tested and not an extraneous variable of differing amounts of background light.

(d) Many candidates scored full marks when suggesting that a listening task would be appropriate
because the lighting was either bright or dim, and the light might be an extraneous variable if a test
using light was the DV. Some candidates suggested that people have to concentrate more on a
listening task. Those answers scoring full marks referred to how the validity of the test might be
affected by their suggestion.

(e) Answers to this question could be categorised into three types: (i) those who could not suggest a
weakness; (ii) those who suggested that being in a laboratory would reduce ecological validity (the
task would be artificial) and these answers scored one mark; (iii) those who gave a reason, such
as that in (ii) above, but then went on to relate the reason for Zayn’s study, by writing, for example
‘a listening task in bright or dim light is not something a person would do in everyday life.’ Answers
like this scored the full two marks.

Question 8

(a) Candidates had to draw a histogram, and only a few candidates managed to score the three
available marks. Marks were awarded for correctly labelling the x-axis (the categories of
temperature) and the y-axis (the frequency of each category). This was done successfully by many
candidates. Additionally, the data had to be plotted. A histogram requires the bars to be the same
width and have no gaps between them. Whilst a few candidates did this, many included gaps,
plotted the data incorrectly and some attempted to plot the data in the form of a correlation. All
these answers could not be awarded the additional mark.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) Acceptable answers for this question were that ‘hot weather makes people more angry’ or ‘people
speed more when the weather is warmer’. What was not acceptable was an answer that referred to
a correlation, such as ‘there is a positive correlation between speeding offences and temperature’.
Data in the form of a histogram can never be ‘converted’ into correlational data, conclusions about
a histogram cannot become correlational.

(c) (i) Some candidates did not score marks for two main reasons: the variable suggested was not a
situational one as the question required; or the suggested variable was temperature which was not
allowed because all of question 8 is about temperature (i.e. the data in the stem and histogram).
However, the effect of temperature on some other variable was acceptable. For example, a very
hot temperature might reduce amount of traffic on the roads (so the situational variable is traffic
density). Many candidates also failed to answer the second part of the question, which was to
consider ‘how this could have affected Gwyn’s results’. A full mark answer would be, for example:
‘there might be less traffic on the roads when it is hot (one mark) which means that people might
speed more’ (two marks).

(ii) For candidates correctly answering part (c)(i) the answer to this question part was an obvious
consequence and nearly all candidates scored the one available mark. For example, stating ‘there
might be less traffic on the roads when it is hot which means that people might speed more’ led to
the answer ‘to count the number of cars and only collect data on days of similar traffic density’.

Question 9

As mentioned in relation to Question 7, it is essential that the stem of the question is read before beginning
to answer the question parts.

(a) (i) The main weakness was that many candidates suggested that the elderly people would open-up to
Hazel and answer any of her questions. However, the stem states that the study is an observation
and so there would be no questions, leading to such answers scoring 0 marks. Correct answers
would be that the participants would behave normally because she is familiar to them rather than
how they would behave if a stranger were observing them.

(b) (i) Most candidates were awarded one mark for referring to ethical problems such as the risk of harm,
invasion of privacy or reduced right to withdraw. What was often absent is how the ethical problem
related to Hazel and her study. Candidates scoring full marks included answers such as (for the
right to withdraw): ‘the elderly people might feel that they are unable to withdraw because they are
expressing emotions because Hazel knows them’.

(ii) One mark was awarded for a general answer, such as ‘make the right to withdraw clear’ and one
further mark was awarded for suggesting how Hazel could apply this in her study. One way would
be to state: ‘Hazel could put up a sign explaining to residents that they could go to their rooms
whenever they wished’. For potential psychological harm, debriefing could be done (one mark) and
Hazel could reassure a participant if she sees them becoming distressed (+ one mark).

Question 10

(a) There are many methods in psychology and that only an experiment has an IV and DV. Other
methods such as observations, interviews and questionnaires are not experiments and so
‘experimental terminology’ does not apply. This question required candidates to conduct a study
using a structured interview and as this is not an experiment, any mention of experimental
terminology was irrelevant and scored no marks. Many candidates included the major features of a
structured interview in their suggested studies, which included the content of the questions (topics
such as serious/playful, optimistic/pessimistic); how the structured interview would be conducted
(same questions to all and in the same order); the style of the questions (open, closed or both). In
addition, marks were awarded for minor features such as the location of the study, the participants,
how answers to questions would be scored. Answers addressing all or most of these features often
scored very high marks; some responses at the bottom end of the mark range addressed only one
or two and often in a vague way. A small number of candidates designed an experiment rather than
conducting a structured interview, which could not be credited.

(b) Although there were many maximum mark answers, there were others that did not score full marks.
There were several reasons for this. (i) Despite the question stating ‘do not refer to ethics or
sampling’, a number of answers incorrectly focused on one of these aspects. (ii) Some answers

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

were very brief, often no more than a single sentence, when more detail could have scored more
marks. (iii) Confusion concerning a structured interview. Many candidates incorrectly referred to a
structured interview only gathering quantitative data (and an unstructured interview gathers only
qualitative data). A structured interview simply means that all participants get the same questions in
the same order, and the questions asked can be open or closed.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/23
Research Methods

Key messages

• This research methods paper asks candidates to answer a range of questions, including ones about the
core studies in relation to research methods, terms and concepts used to describe or evaluate research
methodology, and application of this knowledge to both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. Such questions
require different skills, some of which presented difficulties for some candidates. It is essential that
candidates are prepared for each of these skills, especially understanding terms and the accurate
application of this knowledge.
• Applying knowledge and understanding to novel scenarios is important to succeed on this paper. This
could have helped candidates in two ways:
- Candidates needed to be able to apply research methods terms and concepts to scenarios
presented in questions. These can include, for example, planning, criticising or developing designs
or analysing data.
- Candidates must take note of questions which indicate the need for examples or for a link. When a
question says ‘in this study’, makes direct reference to the scenario, or states ‘give an example’,
responses must go beyond simply describing or evaluating. Candidates therefore need to be
prepared for questions using such formats and practice can help them to learn both how to extract
relevant ideas and how to make novel suggestions.
• It is critical that candidates read and follow the instructions given in the question. These include reading
and following the command words, applying concepts directly to novel scenarios when these are given
and reading the whole question.

General comments

Candidates were able to access marks across the whole paper. However, not all were able to accurately and
consistently demonstrate knowledge and understanding, or access the additional marks for linking their
response to the scenarios, thus limiting performance as a whole.

Candidates across the ability range were able to demonstrate some knowledge of a range of aspects of
research methods in this paper. Success was greater on some straightforward questions, such as
Questions 1(a), 3, 7(a), (b) and (c), 8(b)(i) and (ii) and 9(a), than on more demanding ones, such as
Questions 7(d) and 10. However, there were also some more straightforward questions which candidates
found challenging, such as 8(a), 9(b) and 9(c).

Where questions require linking, such as to provide an example or to relate to a study, candidates were often
able to earn partial marks for an initial identification of a relevant fact, such as types of observations in
Question 6, but were then unable to link this information correctly to an example.

Question 10 was sometimes well answered although responses were at least partly irrelevant and often
gave inappropriate or incomplete examples of open and closed questions – an essential part of a self-report
such as a questionnaire. Such responses therefore lacked the necessary relevant detail. To ensure that
candidates are able to provide the necessary, relevant detail for each research method, it is important that
candidates have practised this high-level skill. It is most readily developed through practical work with
designing and conducting small studies or through practice with novel scenarios.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) This question part was generally well answered, with many candidates achieving at least one mark
by stating tiredness or boredom. A common error here was to describe fatigue effects by using the
word fatigued – it is important that candidates do not write circular statements, i.e. candidates
should not repeat the key word in their definitions.

(b) A range of acceptable responses were given here. However, several candidates simply stated that
Alex made more errors, which was incorrect.

Question 2

Most candidates earned the mark here. However, many experienced a similar problem to Question 1(a), i.e.
one of repetition. On this occasion, some candidates simply repeated that an opportunity sample lacks
representativeness without explaining why.

Question 3

Many candidates achieved full marks on this question, with the most common responses referring to the
juice reward and linking clearly to a lack of punishment/deprivation.

Some responses referred merely to having space.

Question 4

(a) Many candidates were able to access the full 4 marks. However, a significant minority of
candidates did not address the end of the question stating it had to be data other than from the
fMRI. More commonly, candidates could identify the two quantitative measures but did not give the
detail necessary for the second mark or, alternatively, gave the detail for remembered / forgotten /
familiar but did not state that the quantitative measure was the number of slides recalled /
remembered.

(b) (i) Many candidates found the precise nature of application of knowledge required by this question
difficult, with responses focusing on the study rather than the measure. However, there were a few
excellent responses giving good detail from the original study with regards to the correlation
between valence and emotional intensity ratings.

(ii) Candidates were better able to access the marks on this question part than on (b)(i), with a
common response being ‘individual differences’ or ‘participant variables’ and the interpretation of
the emotional ratings.

Question 5

A common response to this question was to give a generic statement of ‘to avoid demand characteristics’.
However, the mark required that the answer was specifically applied to Andrade’s study, rather than merely
being the identification of a term.

Question 6

There were some strong answers to this question but also significant errors. Many candidates appeared to
be confused between covert and overt observations. In addition, there were many responses which referred
to participant/non-participant observation rather than overt/covert. Some responses suggested that covert
observations were the same as participant observations and that overt observations were necessarily non-
participant.

Examples often just stated a reference without giving specific detail that illustrated how it was relevant to the
question (e.g. ‘Piliavin’ was not enough, the response needed to say, for example, that the observers were
disguised as passengers).

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Question 7

(a) Most candidates performed well on this question. Nevertheless, some candidates only gained one
mark as their second point was just a reversal of the first (e.g. count how many shapes sorted
correctly (first point), count how many shapes were sorted incorrectly (second point).

In addition, a number of candidates identified different methods (e.g. observation, self report), i.e.
did not answer the question.

(b) Many candidates were able to indicate that they recognised the need to change the way consent
was gained from children, although some simply presented their answer as though it was intended
for an adult, thus could not earn credit. Some strong responses included Dhia demonstrating
sorting to the children so that they could decide and telling them that she would ‘score the game’.

(c) This question part was mostly well answered with a range of ideas that were appropriate to
children.

(d) This question part was not as well answered as the rest of Question 7. This was in part because
many candidates were using the terms validity, reliability and generalisability interchangeably and
simply stated ‘this will affect the validity and reliability of Dhia’s results’ without explaining the effect.

Candidates need to show clear understanding of the different terms, and to be able to apply them
to novel situations.

Question 8

(a) This question part did not receive many strong answers. A common error was for candidates to
respond that interviews will allow for qualitative data to be gathered. However, questionnaires can
also easily gather qualitative data so this was not a reason.

(b) (i) This question part was generally well answered with a range of appropriate reasons being offered,
for example that people with back pain may spend more time in bed and so be exposed to less
sunlight.

(ii) This question part was also generally well answered with a range of appropriate reasons. For
example, selecting people with hand pain, because they would be more mobile than patients with
back pain or using athletes who have sustained injuries as they would normally be outdoors in the
sun. In some cases, candidates merely stated a different sampling technique, which was not
answering the question so could not earn credit.

(c) Few candidates marked units on the sunlight axis and there were many examples of positive
correlations and of bar charts.

Question 9

(a) This question part was generally well answered, with 2 marks typically being awarded for two
suggestions rather than one suggestion with detail.

(b) This question part did not receive many strong responses. There were many references to
correlations not equalling causation which were not relevant to the question. Other candidates
identified that there may have been participant variables in terms of memory but did not clearly
contextualise this to potential differences between the groups of doodlers and non-doodlers.

(c) This question part did not receive many strong responses. A significant number of candidates
incorrectly referred to a debrief as prior to a study to gain informed consent, hence they could not
earn credit. Some candidates correctly identified returning participants to their original state but did
not link this idea to Mitesh’s study (e.g. feeling bad that they hadn’t recalled many noises).

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section C

Question 10

(a) Many candidates made their responses to this question much more complex than was required, for
example describing complex laboratory experiments/field experiments/covert observations/stooges
at parties. Many responses were limited to a Level 1 score.

Candidates often appeared unaware that they should include response options for closed
questions (e.g. Yes/No). Many responses, however, did include reference to qualitative and
quantitative data, so were able to access Level 2. A minority of candidates gave closed questions
as examples of open questions. Nevertheless, there were some excellent responses.

(b) Strong responses here are based on the details of the study they have described in part 10(a).
However, candidates need to ensure that they are taking notice of guidance in the question (e.g.
not referring to ethics or sampling) and must clearly link their problems/solutions to their procedure.
Only a few candidates did this.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/31
Specialist Options: Theory

Key messages

Questions 1(a), 3(a), 5(a) and 7(a)

It is important that candidates are made aware of the terminology, concepts and theories identified in the
syllabus, as well as key terms used in named theories and studies, as some were unable to identify and/or
define the terms given in these types of questions. Creating a glossary of key terms, revision of terminology
using flash cards and class quizzes on terminology could prove useful. Where the response gave an
example to help define the term or theory, it often achieved full marks. These questions are worth 2 marks
and a brief response is appropriate.

Questions 1(b), 3(b), 5(b) and 7(b)

These questions could ask the candidate to describe a theory, study, treatment or technique that is named in
the syllabus. These questions could also ask the candidate to describe a part of one of the named studies,
such as the procedure or the findings, or a summary of the key features of the study. This question is worth 4
marks and the candidates should write a more extended answer. It would be helpful for candidates to create
a revision flashcard or mind map of each bullet point in the syllabus. The flashcard should be given the title
used in the syllabus, for example, ‘treatment and management of schizophrenia and delusion disorder:
cognitive-behavioural therapy: Sensky’, to help the candidate to identify which part of the syllabus the
question is referring to. If the question asks for a part of the study, the response should only describe this
part. For example, if the question asks for the procedure, then the response should not describe the findings
of the study.

Questions 1(c), 3(c), 5(c) and 7(c)

These questions could require the candidate to explain up to two strengths/advantages or weaknesses/
disadvantages of what they have described in the part (b) of the question. The question could also ask the
candidates to make a comparison or to evaluate using a specific issue such as the effectiveness of controls
used in a study. This question is worth 6 marks so the candidate should write a more extended answer for
each issue raised. Some responses were very detailed for one issue but then only briefly discussed the
second issue. In addition, many of the responses were general and not specific to the study, theory or
technique named in the question. To improve, responses should give specific examples to support their
point. As mentioned for the odd question part (b), the candidate could make a flashcard/revision notes and
include strengths and weaknesses of the theory, study or technique to help candidates prepare for these
questions.

Questions 2(a), 4(a), 6(a) and 8(a)

This question comes from one of the bullet points in the syllabus. Candidates could describe the three or four
studies, theories or techniques identified in the syllabus under the appropriate bullet point. It is possible for
the responses to achieve full marks by describing at least two of the studies, theories or techniques and this
would need to be a very detailed description. Full marks can also be achieved by a response that describes
three of the bullet points in detail (in less depth than if the response described two of the studies, theories or
techniques) with excellent understanding and good use of terminology throughout. It is also important that
the descriptions are linked to the topic area named in the syllabus. It could be useful for candidates to create
revision notes with the title of each bullet point as the header in their notes.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Questions 2(b), 4(b), 6(b) and 8(b)

This question asks the candidate to evaluate the theories, studies and/or techniques described in part (a) of
the question. The response must include at least two evaluation issues, including the named issue, in order
to be considered to have presented a range of issues to achieve the top band. However, most responses
that evaluated using two issues in this exam, achieved marks in the lower bands due to the response being
superficial and often with little analysis. Some responses that considered three issues tended to achieve
higher marks as these responses were able to demonstrate comprehensive understanding with good
supporting examples from the theories, studies and techniques described in the part (a) of the answer. The
candidate must also provide some form of analysis. This could be done by discussing the strengths and
weaknesses of the issue being considered, presenting a counterargument to the issue under discussion, or
comparing the issue between two studies and/or theories. A conclusion at the end of each issue would be
helpful in order to show excellent understanding of the issue under discussion. To achieve the requirements
of the Level 3 and 4 band descriptors, the response should ideally be structured by issue rather than by
study and/or theory. It would also be ideal for the response to start with the named issue to make sure the
answer covers this requirement of the question.

Some of the responses covered other issues rather than the one named in the question. Quite a few of the
answers were structured by study/theory/technique rather than by the issue, which often led the response to
be quite superficial and repetitive. A few of the responses did analysis. Candidates should be aware this
question is worth 10 marks and attempt to include an appropriate amount of information.

General comments

The marks achieved by candidates for this session of the 9990 syllabus achieved across the full range of the
mark bands.. Some candidates were well prepared for the exam and showed good knowledge,
understanding and evaluation throughout their responses. A number of candidates were not as well prepared
and showed limited knowledge and understanding with brief and/or superficial responses. These candidates
often showed limited evaluation skills.

Time management for this paper was good for the majority of candidates and most attempted all questions
that were required. Some candidates did not respond to one or more of the questions asked in the option
area. A very small number of the candidates attempted to respond to more than two topic areas but often did
not attempt all of the questions for each option chosen. These responses achieved at the lower end of the
mark band.

The questions on abnormality were the more popular choice of option, followed by health.

Comments on specific questions

Psychology and Abnormality

Question 1

(a) Many of the responses addressed the question and achieved one or two marks by outlining a
cognitive explanation of schizophrenia and delusional disorder. Common responses included
outlining faulty reasoning, difficulties with self-monitoring, and a failure to recognise hallucinations
as that of the sufferer’s own voice. Some responses outlined a behavioural or biochemical
explanation of schizophrenia which was not creditworthy.

(b) A significant number of responses were able to describe the procedure in the study by Sensky et
al. of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for schizophrenia. Strong responses referred to the
participants, the random allocation to treatment, details of CBT and befriending treatments, as well
as some details of how the patients were assessed. Weaker responses gave an outline of CBT
with no other details of the study provided. Some responses described the incorrect study such as
the study on token economies by Paul and Lentz. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) The responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses
outlined both a similarity and a difference between CBT and a biochemical treatment for
schizophrenia/delusional disorder. Most common good similarities looked at intervention from
therapist or evidence for success, good differences included the fact that the treatments were

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

based upon different approaches and prevalence of side effects in drug treatments but not CBT.
Weaker responses often identified the similarity or difference without providing any examples.
Some responses compared CBT to ECT which is not a biochemical treatment. These types of
responses were not creditworthy.

Question 2

(a) Responses varied considerably for this question and covered the full range of the marks available,
although most achieved in the lower mark bands due to lack of detail in the response and/or errors
in the description.

Stronger responses gave good definitions of bipolar and unipolar disorder as well as detailed
outline of the BDI. Weaker responses described bipolar disorder but stated that the change from
depression to mania could happen very quickly and last a very brief period of time which is
incorrect. There were a number of descriptions of explanations and/or treatments and also a
significant proportion of candidates who described a number of disorders from other parts of the
syllabus, notably schizophrenia, phobias and OCD. These types of responses were not
creditworthy.

(b) Many of the responses achieved in the Level 1 or Level 2 mark band. A few candidates provided
clear analysis and details of the characteristics and measures to back up their evaluative points
that enabled their responses to achieve Level 3 and above. There was a tendency for responses to
focus on many issues per characteristic/measure rather than applying the issue to the different
characteristic/measure.

A few responses did effectively discuss the named issue of validity with some clear analysis. Many
of the responses did not address the named issue of validity. Common evaluation issues included
self-reports, reliability and application to everyday life. Some responses just evaluated the BDI with
no attempt made to evaluate the characteristics and the issues surrounding diagnosis. Some
responses evaluated explanations and/or treatments in part (b) which was not creditworthy.

Psychology and Consumer Behaviour

Question 3

(a) There were a few strong responses to this question with an identification of two stages of the
consumer decision model other than ‘recognition of need’. Popular stages included identifying
‘informational search’ and ‘evaluation of alternatives’. Weaker responses identified one stage
correctly. Many candidates did not attempt this question or gave incorrect stages.

(b) There were some very clear and detailed responses describing two different ways to close a sale.
Common responses included reciprocity, liking, scarcity and body language. Responses that gave
examples to explain how the way to close a sale would lead to a purchase often achieved full
marks. There were some candidates that did not attempt this question.

(c) There were some strong responses to this question with the vast majority being able to give both
an advantage and a disadvantage of one of the ways to close a sale outlined in part (b). Common
advantages included explaining why this way of closing the sale would lead to a purchase and
increased income for the company, repeated sales in the future through word of mouth and
increased reputation of the company/product. Common disadvantages included explaining why the
consumer might not purchase the product due to feeling pressured and lowered reputation of the
company. Strong responses identified the advantage/disadvantage and gave clear examples to
explain their point. Weaker responses did not explain with any clarity about why it was a strength or
weakness. For example, many simply outlined that the company would have increased sales rather
than looking at the point of view of the consumer and their satisfaction. These types of responses
achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

Question 4

(a) Many responses achieved Level 1 or Level 2 for this question. A few were able to achieve in Level
3 or Level 4 by giving fairly detailed descriptions of the models of the effects of ambience including
pleasure-arousal and cognition-emotion, the Kutlu et al. study on lighting and colour in retail stores
and the Chebat and Michon study on the effects of odour on shopper arousal and emotion. Weaker

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

responses often briefly described the studies by Kutlu et al. and the study by Chebat and Michon
but often with few details. Some responses just outlined the findings/conclusion of these studies
with no other details given. These types of responses often achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

(b) Those responses that achieved in the higher mark bands for part (a), tended to produce good
answers to this question, with some understanding of how control of variables applied to the
studies with some examples given. Some attempted analysis, for example pointing out that
samples in both the studies lacked generalisability with some examples given to back up the point
made. Weaker responses did not attempt the named issue of control of variables. This appeared to
be because as the study was not described in part (a), the candidate was not aware of the controls
used in the studies. Ecological validity, ethics and self-reports were other commonly chosen issues.
Weak responses often named an issue and then stated that a study either supported the issue
(had good ethics) or did not support the issue (had poor ethics) without any explanation given for
the point made. These types of responses achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

Psychology and Health

Question 5

(a) Many responses achieved 1 mark by giving examples of the features/components of the Yale
model of communication such as the communicator, target, attention, etc. However, most
responses did not outline the model in relation to health promotion to achieve full marks. A few
responses did this by giving an example related to health promotion for one of the features, such
as the communicator being a well-respected doctor/expert in the field of medicine, and achieved
full marks. A number of responses did not know the Yale model of communication and either did
not answer the question or wrote a general response about health. These types of responses were
not creditworthy.

(b) There were a few strong responses to this question with some giving a detailed description of the
Lau et al. study on health change in adolescents. Common responses included the aim, that the
study was longitudinal, that adolescents and their parents answered questionnaires and some of
the results of the study. Weaker responses often outlined that the study used a questionnaire and
gave a result. There were many incorrect responses with candidates outlining a study done on
children rather than adolescents. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) Where there was a creditworthy response in part (b), the candidates were often able to outline
both a strength and a weakness of the Lau et al. study. Common strengths included generalisability
of the sample size, practical application and being able to monitor change in health belief/change
over time. The most common weakness was generalisability due to the participants being from one
university. Many responses achieved Level 1 or Level 2 due to not providing any clear example
from the Lau et al. study to back up their strength and/or weakness. Responses that were not
creditworthy typically evaluated the incorrect study.

Question 6

(a) The responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses had
a good understanding of the measures of pain and focused on 3 or 4 measures rather than
attempting to describe all of the measures detailed on the syllabus. There were some very detailed
descriptions of the McGill Pain questionnaire, UAB pain behavioural scale and the Wong-Baker
scale. Weaker responses attempted to describe a large number of measures of pain but very
superficially (and/or incorrectly). These types of responses typically achieved in the Level 1 mark
band. A number of responses described theories of pain rather than measures of pain which was
not creditworthy.

(b) There were some strong responses to this question. These were often able to evaluate the named
issue of psychometrics and give the strengths and weaknesses of this type of measure, as well as
examples from the measures of pain described in part (a). Other common evaluation issues for this
question included the reliability of the measurements, self-reports (although this sometimes just
repeated the issues of reliability and/or validity), quantitative data and objectivity versus
subjectivity. Weaker responses seemed to be when a large number of issues were covered but all
were done in a very superficial manner, simply stating that issues did or did not apply to the
measurements but not why. These types of responses often achieved Level 1.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Psychology and Organisations

Question 7

(a) There were some strong responses to this question with some achieving full marks. The most
common practices identified from Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) were
‘encourage the heart’ and ‘model the way’ which was either identified or described. Weaker
responses identified one of the practices (typically ‘model the way’). Some responses gave an
outline of a theory of leadership which was not creditworthy.

(b) There were several good, detailed responses to this question. There were some strong answers
describing the styles of leader behaviour proposed by Muczyk and Reimann including the
dimensions of directive/permissive and autocrat/democrat. Other good responses described
specific types e.g. directive autocrat. Some responses confused the styles of leader behaviour with
situational leadership. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) There were a few good responses to this question with both a similarity and a difference given
between Muczyk and Reimann’s styles of leader behaviour and Hersey and Blanchard’s situational
leadership. Stronger responses outlined the similarity that both depend on the situation or require
the leader to be flexible/adaptable, and some did give examples from both theories to back up their
similarity. A common difference was that the styles of leader behaviour sees a distinction between
making decisions and carrying them through whereas situational leadership does not. If the
candidate outlined situational leadership in part (b) of their response, they were often unable to
outline either a similarity or a difference.

Question 8

(a) There were some good, detailed responses to this question with clear details given of group
development and roles in organisations, including Tuckman’s theory of group development,
Belbin’s theory of team roles and Belbin’s team inventory. Tuckman and Belbin’s theories tended to
be the most detailed of these descriptions. Weaker responses tended to be brief or gave anecdotal
descriptions of group development and roles. A number of responses referred to other sections of
the syllabus, such as attitudes to work and theories of motivation. These types of responses were
not creditworthy.

(b) There were a few good responses to this question where it was structured by evaluation issue and
began with the named issue of practical applications. Some of these responses gave clear
examples from part (a) of their response to back up their evaluative points and attempted some
analysis. In addition to practical applications, popular evaluation issues were individual and
situational, and reductionism versus holism. Weaker responses did attempt to evaluate the named
issue but did not explain why the research had a practical application and did no analysis. These
types of responses tended to state that a theory or study either was or was not applicable to
companies with no explanation of this given. Those responses that attempted individual and
situational explanations were often weak with confusion over the definition of this issue.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/32
Specialist Options: Theory

Key messages

Questions 1(a), 3(a), 5(a) and 7(a)

It is important that candidates are made aware of the terminology, theories and disorders identified in the
syllabus, as well as key terms used in named theories and studies, as some were unable to identify and/or
define the terms/theories given in these types of questions. Creating a glossary of key terms, revision of
terminology/theories using flash cards and class quizzes on terminology/theories could prove useful. These
questions are worth 2 marks and a brief response is appropriate.

Questions 1(b), 3(b), 5(b) and 7(b)

These questions could ask the candidate to describe a theory, study, treatment or technique such as a self-
report used by psychologists that is named in the syllabus. These questions could also ask the candidate to
describe a part of one of the named studies, such as the procedure or the findings, or a summary of the key
features of the study. This question is worth 4 marks and the candidates should write a more extended
answer. It would be helpful for candidates to create a revision flashcard or mind map of each bullet point in
the syllabus. The flashcard should be given the title used in the syllabus, for example, ‘characteristics of
anxiety disorders: measures: Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment (GAD-7)’, to help the candidate to
identify which part of the syllabus the question is referring to. If the question asks for a part of the study, the
response should only describe this part. For example, if the question asks for the findings, then the response
should not describe the procedure of the study.

Questions 1(c), 3(c), 5(c) and 7(c)

These questions could require the candidate to explain up to two strengths or weaknesses of what they have
described in the part (b) of the question. The question could also ask the candidates to make a comparison
or to evaluate using a specific issue such as the reliability of a study. This question is worth 6 marks so the
candidate should write a more extended answer for each issue raised. Some responses were very detailed
for one issue but then only briefly discussed the second issue. In addition, many of the responses were
general and not specific to the study named in the question. To improve, responses should give specific
examples to support their point. As mentioned for the odd question part (b), the candidate could make a
flashcard/revision notes and include strengths and weaknesses of the theory, study or technique to help
candidates prepare for these questions.

Questions 2(b), 4(b), 6(b) and 8(b)

This question comes from one of the bullet points in the syllabus. Candidates could describe the three or four
studies, theories, disorders or techniques identified in the syllabus under the appropriate bullet point. For this
exam, some of the answers used the incorrect topic area in the syllabus or the description was brief. It is
possible for the responses to achieve full marks by describing at least two of the studies, theories, disorders
or techniques and this would need to be a very detailed description. Full marks can also be achieved by a
response that describes three of the bullet points in detail (in less depth than if the response described two of
the studies, theories or techniques) with excellent understanding and good use of terminology throughout. It
is also important that the descriptions are linked to the topic area named in the syllabus. It could be useful for
candidates to create revision notes with the title of each bullet point as the header in their notes.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Questions 2b, 4b, 6b and 8b

This question asks the candidate to evaluate the theories, studies, disorders and/or techniques described in
part (a) of the question. The response must include at least two evaluation issues, including the named
issue, in order to be considered to have presented a range of issues to achieve the top band. However, most
responses that evaluated using two issues in this exam, achieved marks in the lower bands due to the
response being superficial and often with little analysis. Some responses that considered three issues
tended to achieve higher marks as these responses were able to demonstrate comprehensive understanding
with good supporting examples from the theories, studies, disorders and techniques described in the part (a)
of the answer. The candidate must also provide some form of analysis. This could be done by discussing the
strengths and weaknesses of the issue being considered, presenting a counterargument to the issue under
discussion or comparing the issue between two studies and/or theories. A conclusion at the end of each
issue would be helpful in order to show excellent understanding of the issue under discussion. To achieve
the requirements of the Level 3 and 4 band descriptors, ideally the response should be structured by issue
rather than by study and/or theory. It would also be ideal for the response to start with the named issue to
make sure the answer covers this requirement of the question.

Some of the responses covered other issues rather than the one named in the question. Quite a few of the
answers were structured by study/theory rather than by the issue, which often led the response to be quite
superficial and repetitive. A number of the responses did analysis. Candidates should be aware this question
is worth 10 marks and attempt to include an appropriate amount of information.

General comments

The marks achieved by candidates for this session of the 9990 syllabus achieved across the full range of the
mark bands. Many candidates were well prepared for the exam and showed good knowledge, understanding
and evaluation throughout their responses. Some candidates were not as well prepared and showed limited
knowledge and understanding with brief and/or superficial responses. These candidates often showed
limited evaluation skills.

Time management for this paper was good for the majority of candidates and most attempted all questions
that were required. A few candidates did not respond to one or more of the questions asked in the option
area. A very small number of the candidates attempted to respond to more than two topic areas but often did
not attempt all the questions for each option chosen. These responses achieved at the lower end of the mark
band.

The questions on abnormality were the more popular choice of option, followed by organisations.

Comments on specific questions

Psychology and Abnormality

Question 1

(a) There were some strong responses to this question with an outline given of classical conditioning
and how this leads to a phobia. Some responses did include appropriate terminology such as
outlining how the neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus which will eventually
lead to the conditioned response of fear to the conditioned stimulus. A number of responses gave
the example of Little Albert and how he learned to be frightened of a white rat and these often
achieved full marks. Weaker responses tended to identify classical conditioning but were then
unable to explain the conditioning process or explained it incorrectly. Some responses gave a
definition of phobias with examples which was not creditworthy.

(b) A significant number of responses were able to describe the Generalised Anxiety Disorder
assessment (GAD-7). Common features included that it is a screening tool, it measures severity of
anxiety, consists of 7 items, and has a 0–3 scale. A few responses were able to include an
example of the statements used in the assessment. Weaker responses included fewer details of
the assessment. Some responses incorrectly identified that this assessment measures the severity
of a phobia rather than anxiety disorder which was not creditworthy.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) Responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses
identified a strength and a weakness and explained this in terms of the GAD-7 with a clear
example. Common strengths included quick and easy (often linked to it being a screening tool so
that once assessed the patient can be referred to a specialist for further assessment) and strengths
of quantitative data collected such as making a comparison before and after treatment. Common
weaknesses included social desirability, lack of quantitative data and that the GAD-7 is just a
screening tool and cannot be used for diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder. The weakness of
social desirability was often not very well explained. Although this weakness was creditworthy, it
should be noted that a self-report is the best measure to find out how a person is feeling and it is
unclear why a patient would not tell the truth in this assessment. Weaker responses had a lack of
depth in their explanations and gave no example from the GAD-7 to back up their point.

Question 2

(a) Responses varied considerably for this question and covered the full range of the marks available.
Some of the candidates were very well prepared for this topic, whereas others showed very limited
knowledge. There were some detailed responses which were accurate and coherent with a good
use of psychological terminology. The strongest responses focused on describing the symptoms of
schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. Many were able to identify which symptoms were positive
and negative and gave good definitions of each symptom and type of delusions. Many gave clear
descriptions of the Freeman study on symptom assessment using virtual reality. Weaker responses
sometimes outlined the symptoms of schizophrenia without identifying which are positive and
negative or giving any description of the symptoms. Some responses did not describe the Freeman
study or gave a brief/inaccurate description. These types of responses often achieved in the Level
1 mark band. A number of responses outlined explanations and/or treatments for schizophrenia
and delusional disorders and these types of responses were not creditworthy.

(b) Many of the responses achieved in the Level 1 or Level 2 mark band, with a few providing clear
analysis and details of the characteristics and the Freeman study to back up their evaluative points
that enabled these types of responses to achieve Level 3 and above. There was a tendency for
responses to focus on many issues per characteristic/measure rather than applying the issue to the
different characteristic/measure. A few responses effectively discussed the named issue of validity
with some clear analysis. Some of the responses did not address the named issue of validity.
Common evaluation issues included reliability and application to everyday life. Some responses
just evaluated the Freeman study with no attempt made to evaluate the characteristics and the
issues surrounding diagnosis. Some responses evaluated explanations and/or treatments in part
(b), which was not creditworthy.

Psychology and Consumer Behaviour

Question 3

(a) There were some strong responses to this question with a clear outline of the AIDA model of
advertising. Some were able to identify attention, interest, desire and action and could achieve 1
mark. Some responses gave an example and linked the example to advertising to achieve the 2nd
mark. Some responses gave a general outline of what a company should do to advertise a product
and these types of responses were not creditworthy.

(b) There were some clear and somewhat detailed responses describing the study by Kohli et al. on
effective slogans. Some showed good knowledge of the 7 recommendations alongside some
understanding of why the recommendations were put forward. Weaker responses often outlined
one or two of the recommendations. There was a lot of misunderstanding that this study was not an
experiment but a review article of other studies. Some responses outlined a study on slogans that
was not from the Kohli et al. study and was therefore not creditworthy.

(c) Where there was a creditworthy response in part (b), the candidates were often able to outline at
least one strength of the Kohli et al. study. Common strengths included practical applications and
validity. Many responses achieved Level 1 or Level 2 due to not providing any clear example from
the Kohli et al. study to back up their strength. Responses that were not creditworthy typically
evaluated the incorrect study or used an inappropriate evaluation issue such as reliability or
ecological validity, without any reference to one of the studies outlined in the Kohli et al. study.
These types of responses were not creditworthy.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 4

(a) Many responses achieved Level 2 or 3 for this question. Good descriptions were often seen in
responses for the Porublev et al. study on gift wrapping. There were also some good descriptions
of product colour and associative learning by Grossman and Wisenblit. The descriptions of the
Atalay et al. study on attention and shelf position were often brief or gave incorrect details such as
stating that the second study took place in a supermarket. Weaker responses gave very brief or
inaccurate details of the research which achieved in Level 1. Some responses just described
different colours of products and how consumers might respond to them which was not
creditworthy.

(b) Those responses that achieved in the higher mark bands for part (a) tended to produce strong
answers to this question, with some understanding of how self-reports applies to the studies with
examples given. Some attempted analysis, for example pointing out the strengths and weaknesses
of self-reports with examples given from the research outlined in part (a). Generalisability,
ecological validity and applications to everyday life were other commonly chosen issues. Weaker
responses often attempted many evaluation issues without discussing any of them in depth or
giving any examples from the part (a) of the response to back up their points. These types of
responses often achieved Level 1.

Psychology and Health

Question 5

(a) This was often well answered with many responses achieving full marks with good outline of one
symptom of Munchausen syndrome. The most common response identified the disorder as faking
an illness in order to gain attention. Many responses gave examples of how the patient would fake
symptoms such as tampering with test results or self-harm. Weaker responses tended to be very
brief and just identified that the syndrome involved faking or lying about an illness. Some
responses outlined hypochondriasis or gave symptoms such as pain and fatigue. These types of
responses were not creditworthy.

(b) There were many strong responses to this question with many giving a detailed outline of findings
from the study by McKinstry and Wang on non-verbal communications in the patient–practitioner
relationship. Common findings included preference for a formally dressed male doctor in a suit, a
female doctor in a lab coat and older and higher social class participants showing a strong
preference for more formal attire. Weaker responses gave fewer findings from the study. In
addition, many responses outlined the procedure of the study which was not creditworthy.

(c) Most responses identified at least one weaknesses, if not two, of the McKinstry and Wang study. A
common weakness given was the lack of generalisability as participants were from Scotland, and
that these findings may not refer to other countries. Stronger responses were able to clearly explain
why participants in another country might have a different response to the participants in the
McKinstry and Wang study, and this was sometimes backed up with a clear example. Another well-
described weakness was the failure to include a picture of a woman in a suit. Some responses
outlined a weakness of the self-report used such as collecting quantitative data or social desirability
bias. These types of responses were often weaker as they were not well explained with clear
examples from the study.

Question 6

(a) Responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses had a
good understanding of the research into improving adherence to medical advice. Some responses
gave clear and accurate details of how to improve practitioner style as outlined by Ley and the
research by Yokley and Glenwick, and Watt et al. Weaker responses often outlined anecdotal
ideas about how to improve adherence and gave fewer details of the research, or some of the
details were incorrect. These types of responses often achieved in Level 1 or Level 2. Some
responses outlined measurements of adherence to medical advice, such as pill counting or repeat
prescriptions, but did not make any reference to improving adherence. These types of responses
were not creditworthy.

(b) There were some strong responses to this question. These were often able to evaluate the named
issue of experiments and discussed issues such as the experimental design and ecological validity,

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

and could give some examples from the Yokley and Glenwick and Watt et al. studies described in
part (a). A few attempted some analysis and were able to discuss both the strengths and
weaknesses of the experimental method and apply these issues effectively to the research. Other
common evaluation issues included generalisability, practical applications, reliability and ethics.
Weaker responses often did not cover the named issue or outlined strengths and/or weaknesses of
experiments without any reference to the research from part (a). Some responses outlined a
number of issues but in a superficial manner, simply stating that issues did or did not apply to
studies but not why. These types of responses often achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

Psychology and Organisations

Question 7

(a) There were some good responses to this question with some achieving full marks by giving a clear
outline of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Strong responses outlined how satisfaction and
dissatisfaction at work are independent of each other and mentioned motivators and hygiene
factors with an example of each.

Weaker responses often outlined motivators and hygiene factors but were not able to outline how
these link to satisfaction/dissatisfaction or that they are independent of each other. These types of
responses often achieved 1 mark.

(b) Most responses were able to achieve 2–3 marks by describing the five dimensions measured in the
job descriptive index (JDI) and how it is scored. A few responses were able to give an example of
one of the statements used in the JDI. Weaker responses gave fewer details of the JDI and often
listed the five dimensions and no other details. A number of responses gave incorrect details of the
measure and often stated that this is used to determine whether a candidate should be given a job,
rather than being a measure of satisfaction at work. These types of responses were not
creditworthy.

(c) Responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses
outlined both a similarity and a difference between the JDI and the quality of working life (QWL)
questionnaire. Most common good similarities explained how both measures can be useful to
organisations and how they could be used, or that both collected quantitative data with examples
given from both measures. Well explained differences included an outline of the number of
dimensions measured in each, with examples given or the rating scales used in the measures.
Weaker responses often identified the similarity or difference without providing any examples.
Some responses suggested that one of the measures used qualitative data which is incorrect and
therefore not creditworthy.

Question 8

(a) There were some good, detailed responses to this question with clear details given of group conflict
in organisations, including details of the levels and causes of group conflict, positive and negative
effects of conflict and how to manage group conflict from Thomas. Weaker responses frequently
outlined one of the bullet points from the section and therefore achieved in the lower mark bands.
There were also some responses that gave anecdotal responses outlining causes of group conflict
in an organisation. In addition, some responses outlined theories from other parts of the syllabus
such as group development and roles without any reference to group conflict. These types of
responses were not creditworthy.

(b) There were some strong responses to this question where it was structured by evaluation issue
and began with the named issue of individual and situational explanations. Some of these
responses gave clear examples from part (a) of their response to back up their evaluative points
and attempted some analysis. In addition to individual and situational explanations, popular
evaluation issues were generalisability and practical applications. A number of responses often
continued the description from part (a), and did not provide any evaluative points which was not
creditworthy.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/33
Specialist Options: Theory

Key messages

Questions 1(a), 3(a), 5(a) and 7(a)

It is important that candidates are made aware of the terminology, concepts and theories identified in the
syllabus, as well as key terms used in named theories and studies, as some were unable to identify and/or
define the terms given in these types of questions. Creating a glossary of key terms, revision of terminology
using flash cards and class quizzes on terminology could prove useful. Where the response gave an
example to help define the term or theory, it often achieved full marks. These questions are worth 2 marks
and a brief response is appropriate.

Questions 1(b), 3(b), 5(b) and 7(b)

These questions could ask the candidate to describe a theory, study, treatment or technique that is named in
the syllabus. These questions could also ask the candidate to describe a part of one of the named studies,
such as the procedure or the findings, or a summary of the key features of the study. This question is worth 4
marks and the candidates should write a more extended answer. It would be helpful for candidates to create
a revision flashcard or mind map of each bullet point in the syllabus. The flashcard should be given the title
used in the syllabus, for example, ‘treatment and management of schizophrenia and delusion disorder:
cognitive-behavioural therapy: Sensky’, to help the candidate to identify which part of the syllabus the
question is referring to. If the question asks for a part of the study, the response should only describe this
part. For example, if the question asks for the procedure, then the response should not describe the findings
of the study.

Questions 1(c), 3(c), 5(c) and 7(c)

These questions could require the candidate to explain up to two strengths/advantages or weaknesses/
disadvantages of what they have described in the part (b) of the question. The question could also ask the
candidates to make a comparison or to evaluate using a specific issue such as the effectiveness of controls
used in a study. This question is worth 6 marks so the candidate should write a more extended answer for
each issue raised. Some responses were very detailed for one issue but then only briefly discussed the
second issue. In addition, many of the responses were general and not specific to the study, theory or
technique named in the question. To improve, responses should give specific examples to support their
point. As mentioned for the odd question part (b), the candidate could make a flashcard/revision notes and
include strengths and weaknesses of the theory, study or technique to help candidates prepare for these
questions.

Questions 2(a), 4(a), 6(a) and 8(a)

This question comes from one of the bullet points in the syllabus. Candidates could describe the three or four
studies, theories or techniques identified in the syllabus under the appropriate bullet point. It is possible for
the responses to achieve full marks by describing at least two of the studies, theories or techniques and this
would need to be a very detailed description. Full marks can also be achieved by a response that describes
three of the bullet points in detail (in less depth than if the response described two of the studies, theories or
techniques) with excellent understanding and good use of terminology throughout. It is also important that
the descriptions are linked to the topic area named in the syllabus. It could be useful for candidates to create
revision notes with the title of each bullet point as the header in their notes.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Questions 2(b), 4(b), 6(b) and 8(b)

This question asks the candidate to evaluate the theories, studies and/or techniques described in part (a) of
the question. The response must include at least two evaluation issues, including the named issue, in order
to be considered to have presented a range of issues to achieve the top band. However, most responses
that evaluated using two issues in this exam, achieved marks in the lower bands due to the response being
superficial and often with little analysis. Some responses that considered three issues tended to achieve
higher marks as these responses were able to demonstrate comprehensive understanding with good
supporting examples from the theories, studies and techniques described in the part (a) of the answer. The
candidate must also provide some form of analysis. This could be done by discussing the strengths and
weaknesses of the issue being considered, presenting a counterargument to the issue under discussion, or
comparing the issue between two studies and/or theories. A conclusion at the end of each issue would be
helpful in order to show excellent understanding of the issue under discussion. To achieve the requirements
of the Level 3 and 4 band descriptors, the response should ideally be structured by issue rather than by
study and/or theory. It would also be ideal for the response to start with the named issue to make sure the
answer covers this requirement of the question.

Some of the responses covered other issues rather than the one named in the question. Quite a few of the
answers were structured by study/theory/technique rather than by the issue, which often led the response to
be quite superficial and repetitive. A few of the responses did analysis. Candidates should be aware this
question is worth 10 marks and attempt to include an appropriate amount of information.

General comments

The marks achieved by candidates for this session of the 9990 syllabus achieved across the full range of the
mark bands.. Some candidates were well prepared for the exam and showed good knowledge,
understanding and evaluation throughout their responses. A number of candidates were not as well prepared
and showed limited knowledge and understanding with brief and/or superficial responses. These candidates
often showed limited evaluation skills.

Time management for this paper was good for the majority of candidates and most attempted all questions
that were required. Some candidates did not respond to one or more of the questions asked in the option
area. A very small number of the candidates attempted to respond to more than two topic areas but often did
not attempt all of the questions for each option chosen. These responses achieved at the lower end of the
mark band.

The questions on abnormality were the more popular choice of option, followed by health.

Comments on specific questions

Psychology and Abnormality

Question 1

(a) Many of the responses addressed the question and achieved one or two marks by outlining a
cognitive explanation of schizophrenia and delusional disorder. Common responses included
outlining faulty reasoning, difficulties with self-monitoring, and a failure to recognise hallucinations
as that of the sufferer’s own voice. Some responses outlined a behavioural or biochemical
explanation of schizophrenia which was not creditworthy.

(b) A significant number of responses were able to describe the procedure in the study by Sensky et
al. of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for schizophrenia. Strong responses referred to the
participants, the random allocation to treatment, details of CBT and befriending treatments, as well
as some details of how the patients were assessed. Weaker responses gave an outline of CBT
with no other details of the study provided. Some responses described the incorrect study such as
the study on token economies by Paul and Lentz. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) The responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses
outlined both a similarity and a difference between CBT and a biochemical treatment for
schizophrenia/delusional disorder. Most common good similarities looked at intervention from
therapist or evidence for success, good differences included the fact that the treatments were

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

based upon different approaches and prevalence of side effects in drug treatments but not CBT.
Weaker responses often identified the similarity or difference without providing any examples.
Some responses compared CBT to ECT which is not a biochemical treatment. These types of
responses were not creditworthy.

Question 2

(a) Responses varied considerably for this question and covered the full range of the marks available,
although most achieved in the lower mark bands due to lack of detail in the response and/or errors
in the description.

Stronger responses gave good definitions of bipolar and unipolar disorder as well as detailed
outline of the BDI. Weaker responses described bipolar disorder but stated that the change from
depression to mania could happen very quickly and last a very brief period of time which is
incorrect. There were a number of descriptions of explanations and/or treatments and also a
significant proportion of candidates who described a number of disorders from other parts of the
syllabus, notably schizophrenia, phobias and OCD. These types of responses were not
creditworthy.

(b) Many of the responses achieved in the Level 1 or Level 2 mark band. A few candidates provided
clear analysis and details of the characteristics and measures to back up their evaluative points
that enabled their responses to achieve Level 3 and above. There was a tendency for responses to
focus on many issues per characteristic/measure rather than applying the issue to the different
characteristic/measure.

A few responses did effectively discuss the named issue of validity with some clear analysis. Many
of the responses did not address the named issue of validity. Common evaluation issues included
self-reports, reliability and application to everyday life. Some responses just evaluated the BDI with
no attempt made to evaluate the characteristics and the issues surrounding diagnosis. Some
responses evaluated explanations and/or treatments in part (b) which was not creditworthy.

Psychology and Consumer Behaviour

Question 3

(a) There were a few strong responses to this question with an identification of two stages of the
consumer decision model other than ‘recognition of need’. Popular stages included identifying
‘informational search’ and ‘evaluation of alternatives’. Weaker responses identified one stage
correctly. Many candidates did not attempt this question or gave incorrect stages.

(b) There were some very clear and detailed responses describing two different ways to close a sale.
Common responses included reciprocity, liking, scarcity and body language. Responses that gave
examples to explain how the way to close a sale would lead to a purchase often achieved full
marks. There were some candidates that did not attempt this question.

(c) There were some strong responses to this question with the vast majority being able to give both
an advantage and a disadvantage of one of the ways to close a sale outlined in part (b). Common
advantages included explaining why this way of closing the sale would lead to a purchase and
increased income for the company, repeated sales in the future through word of mouth and
increased reputation of the company/product. Common disadvantages included explaining why the
consumer might not purchase the product due to feeling pressured and lowered reputation of the
company. Strong responses identified the advantage/disadvantage and gave clear examples to
explain their point. Weaker responses did not explain with any clarity about why it was a strength or
weakness. For example, many simply outlined that the company would have increased sales rather
than looking at the point of view of the consumer and their satisfaction. These types of responses
achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

Question 4

(a) Many responses achieved Level 1 or Level 2 for this question. A few were able to achieve in Level
3 or Level 4 by giving fairly detailed descriptions of the models of the effects of ambience including
pleasure-arousal and cognition-emotion, the Kutlu et al. study on lighting and colour in retail stores
and the Chebat and Michon study on the effects of odour on shopper arousal and emotion. Weaker

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

responses often briefly described the studies by Kutlu et al. and the study by Chebat and Michon
but often with few details. Some responses just outlined the findings/conclusion of these studies
with no other details given. These types of responses often achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

(b) Those responses that achieved in the higher mark bands for part (a), tended to produce good
answers to this question, with some understanding of how control of variables applied to the
studies with some examples given. Some attempted analysis, for example pointing out that
samples in both the studies lacked generalisability with some examples given to back up the point
made. Weaker responses did not attempt the named issue of control of variables. This appeared to
be because as the study was not described in part (a), the candidate was not aware of the controls
used in the studies. Ecological validity, ethics and self-reports were other commonly chosen issues.
Weak responses often named an issue and then stated that a study either supported the issue
(had good ethics) or did not support the issue (had poor ethics) without any explanation given for
the point made. These types of responses achieved in the Level 1 mark band.

Psychology and Health

Question 5

(a) Many responses achieved 1 mark by giving examples of the features/components of the Yale
model of communication such as the communicator, target, attention, etc. However, most
responses did not outline the model in relation to health promotion to achieve full marks. A few
responses did this by giving an example related to health promotion for one of the features, such
as the communicator being a well-respected doctor/expert in the field of medicine, and achieved
full marks. A number of responses did not know the Yale model of communication and either did
not answer the question or wrote a general response about health. These types of responses were
not creditworthy.

(b) There were a few strong responses to this question with some giving a detailed description of the
Lau et al. study on health change in adolescents. Common responses included the aim, that the
study was longitudinal, that adolescents and their parents answered questionnaires and some of
the results of the study. Weaker responses often outlined that the study used a questionnaire and
gave a result. There were many incorrect responses with candidates outlining a study done on
children rather than adolescents. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) Where there was a creditworthy response in part (b), the candidates were often able to outline
both a strength and a weakness of the Lau et al. study. Common strengths included generalisability
of the sample size, practical application and being able to monitor change in health belief/change
over time. The most common weakness was generalisability due to the participants being from one
university. Many responses achieved Level 1 or Level 2 due to not providing any clear example
from the Lau et al. study to back up their strength and/or weakness. Responses that were not
creditworthy typically evaluated the incorrect study.

Question 6

(a) The responses to this question covered the full range of the mark scheme. Stronger responses had
a good understanding of the measures of pain and focused on 3 or 4 measures rather than
attempting to describe all of the measures detailed on the syllabus. There were some very detailed
descriptions of the McGill Pain questionnaire, UAB pain behavioural scale and the Wong-Baker
scale. Weaker responses attempted to describe a large number of measures of pain but very
superficially (and/or incorrectly). These types of responses typically achieved in the Level 1 mark
band. A number of responses described theories of pain rather than measures of pain which was
not creditworthy.

(b) There were some strong responses to this question. These were often able to evaluate the named
issue of psychometrics and give the strengths and weaknesses of this type of measure, as well as
examples from the measures of pain described in part (a). Other common evaluation issues for this
question included the reliability of the measurements, self-reports (although this sometimes just
repeated the issues of reliability and/or validity), quantitative data and objectivity versus
subjectivity. Weaker responses seemed to be when a large number of issues were covered but all
were done in a very superficial manner, simply stating that issues did or did not apply to the
measurements but not why. These types of responses often achieved Level 1.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Psychology and Organisations

Question 7

(a) There were some strong responses to this question with some achieving full marks. The most
common practices identified from Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) were
‘encourage the heart’ and ‘model the way’ which was either identified or described. Weaker
responses identified one of the practices (typically ‘model the way’). Some responses gave an
outline of a theory of leadership which was not creditworthy.

(b) There were several good, detailed responses to this question. There were some strong answers
describing the styles of leader behaviour proposed by Muczyk and Reimann including the
dimensions of directive/permissive and autocrat/democrat. Other good responses described
specific types e.g. directive autocrat. Some responses confused the styles of leader behaviour with
situational leadership. These types of responses were not creditworthy.

(c) There were a few good responses to this question with both a similarity and a difference given
between Muczyk and Reimann’s styles of leader behaviour and Hersey and Blanchard’s situational
leadership. Stronger responses outlined the similarity that both depend on the situation or require
the leader to be flexible/adaptable, and some did give examples from both theories to back up their
similarity. A common difference was that the styles of leader behaviour sees a distinction between
making decisions and carrying them through whereas situational leadership does not. If the
candidate outlined situational leadership in part (b) of their response, they were often unable to
outline either a similarity or a difference.

Question 8

(a) There were some good, detailed responses to this question with clear details given of group
development and roles in organisations, including Tuckman’s theory of group development,
Belbin’s theory of team roles and Belbin’s team inventory. Tuckman and Belbin’s theories tended to
be the most detailed of these descriptions. Weaker responses tended to be brief or gave anecdotal
descriptions of group development and roles. A number of responses referred to other sections of
the syllabus, such as attitudes to work and theories of motivation. These types of responses were
not creditworthy.

(b) There were a few good responses to this question where it was structured by evaluation issue and
began with the named issue of practical applications. Some of these responses gave clear
examples from part (a) of their response to back up their evaluative points and attempted some
analysis. In addition to practical applications, popular evaluation issues were individual and
situational, and reductionism versus holism. Weaker responses did attempt to evaluate the named
issue but did not explain why the research had a practical application and did no analysis. These
types of responses tended to state that a theory or study either was or was not applicable to
companies with no explanation of this given. Those responses that attempted individual and
situational explanations were often weak with confusion over the definition of this issue.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/41
Specialist Options: Application

Key messages

• What has been learned from the AS component of the syllabus should be transferred to the A2
component. For example, at AS candidates learn about methodology, such as experiments, which also
applies to A2.
• Questions should be read carefully, ensuring that the focus is on what the question asks.
• All components of the question should be included in answers. For example, part (d) for Questions 1,
2, 3 and 4 required advantages and disadvantages (plurals) and a conclusion.
• In Section B, Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8, methodological knowledge must be evident and detailed for top
marks to be accessed. The procedure, however detailed, is just one methodological aspect. For top
marks, answers must explain methodology rather than merely identify it.
• In Section C, Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12, to access top marks answers must include a debate which
has two sides, such as strengths/advantages and weaknesses/disadvantages. Supporting evidence
should also be provided. Description cannot be credited.
• Psychological knowledge should be applied wherever possible. Anecdotal and common-sense answers
will not achieve top marks.

General comments

There was evidence to suggest that many candidates had not studied two options to the same level. Whilst
answers to one option were often very strong, some answers to the second option were notably weaker,
often limited to anecdotal or common-sense responses. Further, there were some examples of weak
examination technique which candidates would benefit from improving.

Section A

• Candidates are advised to read the ‘stem’ of the question, the introduction or the opening words in
Section A questions, as the information provided is crucial to answering each question part that follows.
• Answers must refer to the study the question is about. Many answers provided general comments which
were unrelated to the study itself.
• For part (d), many answers correctly included strengths and weaknesses but often these were not
related to the question, and so restricted marks.
• Many conclusions merely repeated what had already been written, and such summaries scored no
marks. A conclusion is a ‘decision reached by reasoning’ and so as the reasoning has been done
through the advantages and disadvantages, a final decision/conclusion needs to be drawn.
• Candidates should ensure they are focusing on what the question requires, rather than writing pre-
prepared answers. Many questions will test the ability to apply knowledge from one thing to another,
particularly methodological knowledge.
• Candidates should provide sufficient detail to score all the available marks. A single sentence is more
likely to score one mark rather than two marks, so a little elaboration, explanation or an example that
goes beyond the basic sentence is always recommended. Candidates should always try to include
psychological knowledge in their responses.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Answers to part (a) questions in this section should include an appropriate design and have applied a range
(four or five) of relevant methodological design features, each of which should be explained fully, showing
good understanding. Many answers listed features such as ‘I would have a random sample’ and ‘It would be
an independent measures design’ without explanation of why it would be a random sample, or how this
would be obtained.

In part (b), answers should explain the methodological decisions on which their part (a) design is based, and
also explain the psychological evidence on which their design is based. Describing a relevant piece of
research from a topic area alone is not enough to score full marks. The links between the research and how
it informed the design must be shown. There is no need to quote a name (date) for each sentence, some
responses included ‘I chose a self-selecting sample because Milgram (1963) did’ for example. This just
identifies a study using that technique, rather than explaining the choice of sampling technique.

Section C

It is essential that answers focus on the question that is set. Every question in this section invites candidates
to consider the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement. Therefore, candidates are not
required to describe everything they know about that topic area, and answers that do not address the
question will only achieve minimal marks. To score marks at the top end of the mark range, answers must
focus on arguments both for and against the statement, and then use appropriate evidence to support the
argument, and, at the very top of the mark range, answers should show awareness of wider issues and
evidence that is relevant.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) Many candidates were able to clearly explain the term ‘covert sensitisation’ and were awarded full
marks. A few candidates confused it with imaginal desensitisation, systematic desensitisation and
even EMDR. No marks were awarded for incorrect explanation of terms.

(b) (i) Some very strong answers showed good understanding of relevant terms and explained how they
were applied in the study by Glover. However, there were also some weak answers which with little
knowledge demonstrated about the Glover study. An example of an incorrect response was
suggesting that covert means the participant does not know they are being treated.

(c) Many candidates appeared to confuse the terms or did not show understanding of the difference
between the terms sensitisation and desensitisation or between imaginal and covert. A few
candidates described pictures being shown to a participant, which is incorrect, or defining covert as
the participant not knowing that they are involved in treatment, also incorrect. Answers scoring very
few marks also described one term followed by the other rather than giving differences as the
question required. One difference is that imaginal desensitisation uses progressive muscle
relaxation whereas covert sensitisation does not. Another difference is that covert sensitisation
creates an unpleasant association (vomiting in the Glover study) whereas imaginal desensitisation
reduces the emotions associated with an event.

(d) All part (d) questions in Section A require a discussion of advantages and disadvantages and a
conclusion, and this question part was no exception. Further, the advantages and disadvantages
must be related to the question, in this instance covert sensitisation. There were a small number of
answers achieving full marks, with many candidates not relating their answer to the topic area.
Summaries were often included rather than conclusions.

Question 2

(a) The important term that was essential to be addressed in this question was the term ‘perceived’
because this means that the experience of crowding can vary from one individual to another. Many
candidates included this and scored full marks. Others did not show sufficient understanding of the
term.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) Answers to this question were frequently awarded full marks for stating the difference between the
two terms. Candidates understood that human density involves people whereas spatial density is
about the physical location, and with regard to consumer psychology, the number of fixtures and
fittings of a store, or the amount of merchandise in the store, for example.

(ii) This question asked about the questionnaire used by Machleit et al. to gather data about perceived
crowding. Many candidates gave non-specific and general answers such as ‘it included a number
of questions’. The questionnaire used a Likert-type scale, scale range 1–7, asking questions like
‘the store seemed very crowded to me’ each of which would score 1 mark.

(c) Many candidates were unable to suggest a model of the effects of ambience and this restricted
their marks. Some candidates suggested models of personal space, which also could not be
awarded marks. Some candidates suggested the cognition-emotion model, which was applicable,
but the strongest answers suggested the Mehrabian and Russell PAD model which is directly
applicable. This model considers the levels of Arousal, Pleasure and Dominance (the amount of
control a person feels over a situation). This model, applied to the effects of crowding, earned
some candidates maximum marks.

(d) Many answers included two strengths and two weaknesses of questionnaires, but only scored
partial marks because, frequently, answers were not related to the effects of crowding (or even
consumer behaviour) as the question required. An answer might be ‘one strength (of using a
questionnaire) is that it produces quantitative data which can be statistically analysed’. This is
correct but it would not receive full credit without being related to the question, because it could
apply to any question from any topic area rather than this specific question.

Question 3

(a) All candidates had some knowledge about the Funhaler device and all scored at least one mark.
Answers whose description was more detailed, such as adding more than one point, or that it
included a whistle and spinner not included in other devices, were awarded full marks.

(b) At the top end of the mark range, answers were referring to positive reinforcement, Skinner and
operant conditioning, and often explained fully how the spinner and whistle were reinforcers. There
were some weak answers at the bottom end of the mark range suggesting nothing more than it is a
behavioural device because it involves behaviour.

(c) Answers which were not outlined by Watt et al. were acceptable, but candidates suggesting these
often failed to provide any more detail than a single sentence. Although this earned one mark (for
each suggestion), answers needed detail to elaborate to gain two marks. For example, a one mark
answer might be ‘children don’t take their medicine because they do not like the taste’ whereas a
two mark answer might be ‘children apply rational non-adherence: they do not like the taste of the
medicine so make the logical decision that they would rather not take the medicine than suffer the
bad taste.’

(d) Many candidates scored no marks or very few marks because they did not answer the question
set. The question was specifically ‘studies on non-adherence in children’ but responses were often
a general discussion on using children in psychological studies, using AS level studies rather than
those specifically relating to adherence. Any advantage or disadvantage must be focussed on the
question in order to achieve marks.

Question 4

(a) There were some excellent explanations of the quality of working life (QWL), most referring to QWL
as ‘satisfaction with personal and working needs’. Alternatively, there were answers which merely
stated that quality of working life is about the quality a person has in their life at work. Repeating or
rewording the question cannot be credited.

(b) An outline of two features used to assess QWL were required. Some candidates were not able to
demonstrate any knowledge, but others identified a feature (one mark) and then provided an
outline to explain the feature (two marks). A maximum mark answer was typically: ‘One feature is
social integration (one mark) which refers to the interpersonal relationships a worker has with other
workers at work’ (two marks).

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) (i) A small number of candidates confused reliability with validity, which couldn’t be credited. Some
answers were brief, with nothing more written than ‘use test-retest’ for limited credit. Others wrote
‘give the questionnaire to other workers’ which is incorrect because to test reliability, the same
questionnaire should be given to the same workers at a later date (i.e. test re-test).

(ii) Many candidates did not make a suggestion and some suggestions were vague, but top marks
went to those who suggested using concurrent validity, comparing the results of the QWL test with
some other measure of satisfaction. Other measures such as the job descriptive index (JDI) or the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire were appropriate.

(d) This question part followed on from the theme introduced in the stem and asked for advantages
and disadvantages of using a five-point scale to measure job satisfaction. Relevant advantages
and disadvantages were given, but often these were not always related to the QWL questionnaire
(or any other measure). Any advantage or disadvantage must be focussed on the question in order
to achieve marks.

Section B

Question 5

(a) This question did not receive many strong responses . The question asked for an investigation into
the long-term effectiveness of applied tension. A few candidates knew that applied tension is used
to treat blood/injection phobia and planned very good studies. The main weakness was that many
candidates did not know what applied tension is used for. It was commonly assumed that it is a
treatment for phobias and so a study was planned comparing applied tension with systematic
desensitisation (or some other way to reduce anxiety). The problem is that applied tension raises
blood pressure whereas other techniques lower blood pressure through relaxation.

(b) The psychological evidence included in this question part needed to focus specifically on applied
tension and blood/injection phobia. Whilst a few candidates did this, many candidates wrote about
many different kinds of phobias, which was not relevant to the question.

Question 6

(a) Most candidates opted to plan a field experiment, which was a logical choice given the question.
Designs were often impressive because the complex IV had to include three conditions of
chocolate products placed in three different ways in a film clip. Some opted to place a product at
the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a film clip. Others chose to have the product held in the
hand, on a table, or an alternative location. The DV was often the number of times the product was
noticed when participants were asked in a later questionnaire. Overall, there were some very
strong answers.

(b) Methodologically some answers were very strong with detailed explanations for the choice of
placement, and many answers also focused on the controls that were applied. Some answers
needed to explain the plan in more detail, rather than a single sentence statement. Such answers
listed things like ‘I used an opportunity sample’ without any further comment, but an explanation is
required. Psychological knowledge was very strong in many answers, with candidates often
explaining how the study on product placement by Auty and Lewis related to their plan.

Question 7

(a) This question on age differences in non-adherence allowed candidates a free choice of method
with many choosing to make the study an experiment. However, the consequence of this was that
the IV was often muddled between different ages and different reasons. The easier choice, as done
by a small number of candidates, was the use of a questionnaire (or an interview), which asked
participants of different ages to choose one reason for their non-adherence from a range of
different possibilities. Taking time to think about the most appropriate method to use and thinking
the plan through before starting to write is time well spent. It is also worth noting that an experiment
cannot automatically be applied easily to every question that is set.

(b) Direction to what psychological evidence to use to investigate reasons for non-adherence was
provided in the stem of the question, which stated: ‘the health belief model provides many reasons

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

to explain non-adherence’. Yet most candidates overlooked this and invented reasons of their own.
These reasons were usually not based on psychological knowledge. A few candidates opted to
write about rational non-adherence and this was creditworthy. Methodologically most experiments
were not well planned with confused IVs. The methodology for questionnaires was often good,
although the reasons for choosing to use open-ended questions for example was often
insufficiently detailed.

Question 8

(a) This question also gave a free choice of method, and again an experiment was chosen to be
applied by most candidates. Most of these candidates chose to have an IV of ‘with targets’ and
‘without targets’ and a DV of ‘level of motivation’ which was good. What was lacking was
knowledge of target setting, such as the five features of SMART targets, with many candidates
referring to no more than ‘target setting’ throughout. The plan should be based on the
psychological knowledge explained in part (b). If an experiment is chosen, it is important to include
all the specific features (type, IV, DV, controls, design) and also to include a number of general
features, such as the sample and sampling technique, the type of data to be gathered and
appropriate ethical guidelines.

(b) Methodologically most answers were good but could have been made better with more explanation
of the reasons for design decisions. The psychological evidence should have focused on Latham
and Locke’s goal setting theory and their SMART targets (where targets should be specific,
measurable, attainable/agreed, realistic/relevant and time-based). A few answers focused on this
work but many did not, instead focusing on the word ‘motivation’ and writing about Maslow and his
hierarchy which was not relevant.

Section C

Question 9

The main debate here was whether the psychoanalytic explanation of phobias could be generalised to
everyone, with an additional debate about case studies. There were three types of answers. Firstly, some
candidates focused exclusively on the study of Charles, and although advantages and disadvantages of
case studies were provided, the psychoanalytic component was absent. Secondly, there was a debate about
phobias in general, with reference to little Albert and classical conditioning. Again, there was an absence of
the psychoanalytic approach. The third type did include the work of Freud, but often did not go beyond the
work of little Hans. Only a few candidates realised that the Psychoanalytic/Freudian explanation of phobias
applies to all, suggesting that phobias are due to the id, ego and superego.

Question 10

There were some strong answers in response to this question, showing that candidates knew about eye-
tracking, a quantitative, ‘scientific’ measure that can be used when studying menu item position. The debate
was whether this alone was sufficient without the need for qualitative data, or whether people should be
asked about what they look at and why when studying a menu. Some detailed answers addressed this
debate, but others were superficial, often making vague points that were unrelated to menu design.

Question 11

This question linked unrealistic optimism, outlined by Weinstein with preventing stress. The debate would
logically be that those who are unrealistically optimistic would not need to prevent stress, and those that are
not unrealistically optimistic would consider doing something to prevent stress. Whilst a few candidates were
able to debate this, others struggled due to lack of knowledge about unrealistic optimism, preventing stress
or both.

Question 12

The words ‘need to achieve’ in the question should have focused minds on the syllabus section of
achievement motivation and the work of McClelland (1965). McClelland argues that a need for achievement
is very important in working life, as is the need for affiliation (to work with and enjoy friendships with work
colleagues). Consequently, earning money is less relevant. However, many candidates did not address this
and focused on Maslow and his hierarchy of needs.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/42
Specialist Options: Application

Key messages

• What has been learned from the AS component of the syllabus should be transferred to the A2
component. For example, at AS candidates learn about methodology, such as experiments, which also
applies to A2.
• Questions should be read carefully ensuring that the focus is on what the question asks.
• All components of the question should be included in answers. For example, part (d) for Questions 1,
2, 3 and 4 required advantages and disadvantages (plurals) and a conclusion.
• In Section B, Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8, methodological knowledge must be evident and detailed for top
marks to be accessed. The procedure, however detailed, is just one methodological aspect. For top
marks, answers must explain methodology rather than merely identify it.
• In Section C, Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12, to access top marks answers must include a debate which
has two sides, such as strengths/advantages and weaknesses/disadvantages. Supporting evidence
should also be provided. Description cannot be credited.
• Psychological knowledge should be applied wherever possible. Anecdotal and common-sense answers
will not achieve top marks.

General comments

There was evidence to suggest that many candidates had not studied two options to the same level. Whilst
answers to one option were often very strong, some answers to the second option were notably weaker,
often limited to anecdotal or common-sense responses. Further, there were some examples of weak
examination technique which candidates would benefit from improving.

Section A

• Candidates are advised to read the ‘stem’ of the question, the introduction or the opening words in
Section A questions, as the information provided is crucial to answering each question part that follows.
• Answers must refer to the study the question is about. Many answers provided general comments which
were unrelated to the study itself.
• For question part (d), many answers correctly included strengths and weaknesses but often these were
not related to the question, and so restricted marks. For example, to score one mark, answers must
include an advantage and an example.
• Many conclusions merely repeated what had already been written, and such summaries scored no
marks. A conclusion is a ‘decision reached by reasoning’ and so as the reasoning has been done
through the advantages and disadvantages, a final decision/conclusion needs to be drawn.
• Candidates should ensure they are focusing on what the question requires, rather than writing pre-
prepared answers. Many questions will test the ability to apply knowledge from one thing to another,
particularly methodological knowledge.
• Candidates should provide sufficient detail to score all the available marks. A single sentence is more
likely to score one mark rather than two marks, so a little elaboration, explanation or an example that
goes beyond the basic sentence is always recommended. Candidates should always try to include
psychological knowledge in their responses.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Answers to part (a) questions in this section should include an appropriate design, and have applied a range
(four or five) of relevant methodological design features, each of which should be explained fully, showing
good understanding. Many answers listed features such as ‘I would have a random sample’ and ‘It would be
an independent measures design’ without explanation of why it would be a random sample, or how this
would be obtained.

In part (b), answers should explain the methodological decisions on which their part (a) design is based, and
also explain the psychological evidence on which their design is based. Describing a relevant piece of
research from a topic area alone is not enough to score full marks. The links between the research and how
it informed the design must be shown. There is no need to quote a name (date) for each sentence, some
responses included ‘I chose a self-selecting sample because Milgram (1963) did’ for example. This just
identifies a study using that technique, rather than explaining the choice of sampling technique.

Section C

It is essential that answers focus on the question that is set. Every question in this section invites candidates
to consider the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement. Therefore, candidates are not
required to describe everything they know about that topic area, and answers that do not address the
question will only achieve minimal marks. To score marks at the top end of the mark range, answers must
focus on arguments both for and against the statement, and then use appropriate evidence to support the
argument, and, at the very top of the mark range, answers should show awareness of wider issues and
evidence that is relevant.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) In response to this question part, answers were very general rather than based on the work of Ellis.
Ellis believed that, as one candidate wrote ‘a person is not directly affected by outside things but by
their own perception of external things’ and so for Ellis ‘B: Beliefs about the event’ are crucial. It is
the beliefs about an event that therefore need to be changed.

(b) (i) Only a very small number of answers included an irrational belief outlined by EllisExamples of
irrational beliefs outlined by Ellis include ‘awfulising’, ‘self-downing’, musterbating’ and ‘I can’t stand
it itis’. Awfulising, for example, is when a person thinks ‘if I don’t succeed it will be awful’.

(ii) Many answers outlined how irrational beliefs could be changed, but often answers were not based
on REBT, instead a general comment about changing thinking was provided. Ellis outlines D: the
Dispute phase, E: the new more effective Emotions, and Acceptance where the person accepts
reality, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. Answers referring to some parts of this process were
awarded marks.

(c) This question asked for an outline of a psychological treatment of depression. Both Ellis and Beck
provide psychological treatments and therefore candidates outlining the treatment for depression
outlined by Beck were awarded marks. A few candidates described Beck’s explanation of
depression (e.g. the cognitive triad), rather than treatment, which could not be credited. Some
candidates wrote about electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and drug treatments, but as these are
biological rather than psychological, and could not be credited.

(d) This question part continued with the psychological treatment theme and so answers based on
biological (or medical) treatments only received marks if they were used in discussion about
psychological treatments. Some candidates wrote excellent answers and achieved maximum
marks, but many answers only scored partial marks because the strengths and weaknesses were
not supported with appropriate examples from either Beck or Ellis.

Question 2

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(a) Most candidates were able to score full marks by stating that the Kranes design was preferred (one
mark) because it yielded significantly higher ratings than the Friedman design on pleasure and
restoration (2 marks). A few candidates confused the two designs and scored no marks.

(b) The question required two differences; it did not require a description of one design followed by the
other. Candidates scoring full marks stated clearly that, for example, ‘the Kranes design has high
ceilings whereas the Friedman design has low ceilings’ (2 marks). Another correct answer would
be that the Kranes design aims to maximise pleasure and restoration, whereas the Friedman
design decreases restoration.

(c) (i) Any two features of the sample were creditworthy and many candidates scored full marks.
Relevant features included: 48 participants, 26 males and 22 females, or 22 participants who
provided ratings. Additionally: participants had gambled in all six casinos; the casinos were in
Las Vegas, United States; the mean age was 28 years; all had at least a high school degree.

(ii) Most candidates were able to give a disadvantage of using opportunity sampling and scored one
mark. Some answers were no more than one sentence, but many others gave more detail or
related it to the sample in the Finlay et al. study and gained an additional mark.

(d) Many answers included two strengths and two weaknesses and a conclusion, but only scored
partial marks because often answers were not related to the findings of the Finlay et al. study as
the question required.

Question 3

(a) This question required two findings from the graph (shown in fig 3.1). Most candidates answered
the question clearly, often quoting numbers to support their comment. For example: ‘one finding is
that heart rate is the highest in the high stress task reaching approx. 85 beats per minute’. Answers
like this (with a second finding written in this way) scored maximum marks. Other candidates gave
vague answers such as ‘it is highest in the high stress task and low elsewhere’ for limited credit.

(b) (i) Although some candidates outlined the two stress tasks used in the Wang et al. study correctly,
many others were not able to. In the Wang et al. study there was a low stress task, counting aloud
backwards from 1000 and a high stress task, performing serial subtraction of 13 from a four-digit
number out loud.

(ii) This question required an explanation of what causes an increase in heart rate when stressed.
Answers ranged from those which referred to no physiology at all, to those where knowledge and
understanding were well applied. Most answers referred to the pituitary gland secreting hormones,
ACTH stimulating the adrenal medulla to produce adrenaline which causes an increase in heart
rate. A few answers referred to the similar process involving cortisol production.

(c) There were some very strong answers which scored full marks and many incorrect answers. In the
Wang et al. study there were four measures used to test validity: two physiological measures,
those of heart rate and salivary cortisol, and two psychological measures (i.e. the question) which
were a self-report of stress and anxiety (scale 1–9) before/after each task and also a self-report of
effort, frustration and task difficulty (scale 1–9) only after stress tasks.

(d) This part followed on from the theme introduced in the stem regarding physiological measures.
Many answers were restricted because of a lack of knowledge about the physiological measures
used in the Wang et al. study, even though the stem included details about the use of heart rate.
As previously mentioned, the stem of the question provides essential information on which all
question parts are based. Marks were also limited because many candidates provided a summary
of what already been written rather than a conclusion.

Question 4

(a) Correct answers, frequently achieving full marks, stated that temporal is time-related and often
gave a supporting example by referring to shiftwork. Consequently, many answers scored no
marks as they confused temporal with temperature, working conditions or temporary employment.
The stem of the question is crucial to the questions that follow, and reading this would have
directed candidates to the link between temporal and time.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) Nearly all candidates were able to give a correct difference between the metropolitan and in most
cases, the continental rota. The difference is that the metropolitan rota is based on a 2-day cycle
whereas the continental rota includes both 2-day and 3-day work periods.

(ii) This question part also resulted in most candidates scoring full marks for suggesting two correct
effects of shiftwork on health. Most answers mentioned peptic ulcers (or gastrointestinal problems),
cardiovascular disease, and pregnancy difficulties. Some answers correctly referred to sleep
problems. A few answers claimed that there is increased risk of cancer. However, Knuttson (2003)
states ‘there is no evidence for increased risk of cancer.’

(c) Many candidates could not suggest two ways in which working hours can be organised, other than
by shiftwork. There are many possibilities. Working a 9–5 ‘standard’ day is very common across
the world. Variations of this are also possible. Some workers have ‘flexi-time’ where they choose
their own working hours provided 8 hours per day are worked, or variations on this, a ‘compressed’
work week, allowing working more hours per day giving more days off work. There is an ‘on-call’
system which is commonly used by medical staff in hospitals.

(d) Some good answers were written for this question part on shiftwork, but many suffered from the
same problems outlined above for part (d) and candidates could not be awarded marks. In
addition, for this question, even though the question stated ‘other than in relation to health’ many
answers included health in their answers and so marks could not be awarded. Candidates must
answer the question that is set to allow them to be awarded all the available marks.

Section B

Question 5

(a) Overall, this question did not receive many strong answers. The question asked for an investigation
into the most common type of compulsive behaviour. The most logical plan would be to design a
questionnaire listing possible compulsive behaviours, asking participants to tick all the behaviours
they did and then analysing to see which was the most common. Instead of this, many experiments
were conducted comparing males and females, different types of OCD, and many studies were
designed to test different types of treatment.

(b) The psychological evidence included in this question part should have focused specifically on
compulsive behaviors, such as checking, cleaning/washing, slowness, doubting, ordering,
repeating. These were frequently absent from many answers. Instead, the study of ‘Charles’ was
described in full, with little focus on his compulsive behaviour. Methodological knowledge was
sometimes good, but if the plan of the study was flawed, such as those answers focusing on
treatments, then the methodology used to test this was also flawed (an independent design
comparing two different treatments, for example).

Question 6

(a) All candidates answered the question and planned a field experiment. Most IVs consisted of
comparing one or more different odours or comparing an odour with a ‘no-odour’ control. Often
there was good detail in the procedure and DVs were often logical, such as recording how long
people stayed in the clothes shop, or the number of purchases made in the different IV conditions.
Some suggested using a structured interview to ask shoppers whether they had noticed the odour
or not. Overall, there were some very good plans suggested.

(b) Psychological knowledge was described competently in many answers, with candidates focusing
on the study by Chebat and Michon (2003). However, some answers did not go on to explain how
this study informed their plan and so could not be awarded full marks. Methodology was often very
good, with a range of specific and general methodological features being included.

Question 7

(a) This question allowed candidates a choice of experiment and most opted for a field experiment.
Plans were often very good, with variables clearly designed. Most candidates opted to give a drug
to one group and an alternative technique to a different group. However, some candidates were
confused about the purpose of alternative techniques, and some did not know the difference
between acupuncture and TENS. This resulted in some ambiguous procedures being suggested.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) Psychological knowledge was sometimes vague because some candidates knew very little about
acupuncture and stimulation therapy (TENS). Other answers showed a detailed knowledge and
good understanding and often answers linked this knowledge with the plan of the study.
Methodological knowledge was sometimes very good, but again those with limited knowledge had
confused IVs and procedures.

Question 8

(a) Answers to this question resulted in limited marks through not addressing the question set. The
question required a focus on the ‘styles of leader behaviour shown by a person in charge of a
school’. This meant that any plan involving a range of leaders, in a number of different schools, or a
plan involving different organisations could not be awarded full marks. A second problem was that
Muczyk and Reimann’s styles were often not investigated with many alternatives being applied,
such as Fiedler’s LPC, ‘great-person’ leader and other styles which were not related to the styles
Muczyk and Reimann proposed.

(b) Methodology was often appropriate in many plans who used either participant or non-participant to
observe the behaviour of the leader, but sometimes the choice of the observation technique and
how it was applied was not explained. The psychological evidence for this question part should
have focused specifically on Muczyk and Reimann who proposed that leaders can differ according
to ‘degree of participation in decision-making’ and amount of leader direction/execution of a
decision. These two produce four styles: directive autocrat, directive democrat, permissive autocrat
and permissive democrat.

Section C

Question 9

A number of very good answers were written, and the debate here often focused on arguments supporting
the use of biomedical treatments (drugs) for OCD and arguments against the use of such treatments. A
common argument in favour of the use of drugs centred around comorbidity; those with OCD having
depression and therefore anti-depressants were useful. However, the same argument was used against the
use of drugs because they do not actually treat the OCD. Some answers were weak because a general
essay on OCD was written with no attempt to debate or evaluate.

Question 10

There were a few good answers in response to this question, showing that candidates knew about anchoring
and heuristics, and the research by Wansink for example, but many answers were weak with candidates not
able to demonstrate familiarity with the topic area.

Question 11

This question resulted in many answers describing and then evaluating the life events questionnaire
proposed by Holmes and Rahe. This approach scored some bottom-band marks, but this was not the main
focus of the question. The debate of the question concerned the use of psychological measures of stress,
such as the life events questionnaire, being too subjective which is in direct contrast to physiological
measures of stress, which are objective. Only a few answers addressed this debate and those that did often
scored high marks.

Question 12

Answers to this question largely followed the same pattern as seen in the other options, an incorrect
structuring of the answer without engagement with the debate. Often there was a description of adaptive
leadership. Description can only be credited in Section C if it is in support of an argument agreeing or
disagreeing with the debate presented in the question.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

PSYCHOLOGY

Paper 9990/43
Specialist Options: Application

Key messages

• What has been learned from the AS component of the syllabus should be transferred to the A2
component. For example, at AS candidates learn about methodology, such as experiments, which also
applies to A2.
• Questions should be read carefully, ensuring that the focus is on what the question asks.
• All components of the question should be included in answers. For example, part (d) for Questions 1,
2, 3 and 4 required advantages and disadvantages (plurals) and a conclusion.
• In Section B, Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8, methodological knowledge must be evident and detailed for top
marks to be accessed. The procedure, however detailed, is just one methodological aspect. For top
marks, answers must explain methodology rather than merely identify it.
• In Section C, Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12, to access top marks answers must include a debate which
has two sides, such as strengths/advantages and weaknesses/disadvantages. Supporting evidence
should also be provided. Description cannot be credited.
• Psychological knowledge should be applied wherever possible. Anecdotal and common-sense answers
will not achieve top marks.

General comments

There was evidence to suggest that many candidates had not studied two options to the same level. Whilst
answers to one option were often very strong, some answers to the second option were notably weaker,
often limited to anecdotal or common-sense responses. Further, there were some examples of weak
examination technique which candidates would benefit from improving.

Section A

• Candidates are advised to read the ‘stem’ of the question, the introduction or the opening words in
Section A questions, as the information provided is crucial to answering each question part that follows.
• Answers must refer to the study the question is about. Many answers provided general comments which
were unrelated to the study itself.
• For part (d), many answers correctly included strengths and weaknesses but often these were not
related to the question, and so restricted marks.
• Many conclusions merely repeated what had already been written, and such summaries scored no
marks. A conclusion is a ‘decision reached by reasoning’ and so as the reasoning has been done
through the advantages and disadvantages, a final decision/conclusion needs to be drawn.
• Candidates should ensure they are focusing on what the question requires, rather than writing pre-
prepared answers. Many questions will test the ability to apply knowledge from one thing to another,
particularly methodological knowledge.
• Candidates should provide sufficient detail to score all the available marks. A single sentence is more
likely to score one mark rather than two marks, so a little elaboration, explanation or an example that
goes beyond the basic sentence is always recommended. Candidates should always try to include
psychological knowledge in their responses.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Section B

Answers to part (a) questions in this section should include an appropriate design and have applied a range
(four or five) of relevant methodological design features, each of which should be explained fully, showing
good understanding. Many answers listed features such as ‘I would have a random sample’ and ‘It would be
an independent measures design’ without explanation of why it would be a random sample, or how this
would be obtained.

In part (b), answers should explain the methodological decisions on which their part (a) design is based, and
also explain the psychological evidence on which their design is based. Describing a relevant piece of
research from a topic area alone is not enough to score full marks. The links between the research and how
it informed the design must be shown. There is no need to quote a name (date) for each sentence, some
responses included ‘I chose a self-selecting sample because Milgram (1963) did’ for example. This just
identifies a study using that technique, rather than explaining the choice of sampling technique.

Section C

It is essential that answers focus on the question that is set. Every question in this section invites candidates
to consider the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement. Therefore, candidates are not
required to describe everything they know about that topic area, and answers that do not address the
question will only achieve minimal marks. To score marks at the top end of the mark range, answers must
focus on arguments both for and against the statement, and then use appropriate evidence to support the
argument, and, at the very top of the mark range, answers should show awareness of wider issues and
evidence that is relevant.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) Many candidates were able to clearly explain the term ‘covert sensitisation’ and were awarded full
marks. A few candidates confused it with imaginal desensitisation, systematic desensitisation and
even EMDR. No marks were awarded for incorrect explanation of terms.

(b) (i) Some very strong answers showed good understanding of relevant terms and explained how they
were applied in the study by Glover. However, there were also some weak answers which with little
knowledge demonstrated about the Glover study. An example of an incorrect response was
suggesting that covert means the participant does not know they are being treated.

(c) Many candidates appeared to confuse the terms or did not show understanding of the difference
between the terms sensitisation and desensitisation or between imaginal and covert. A few
candidates described pictures being shown to a participant, which is incorrect, or defining covert as
the participant not knowing that they are involved in treatment, also incorrect. Answers scoring very
few marks also described one term followed by the other rather than giving differences as the
question required. One difference is that imaginal desensitisation uses progressive muscle
relaxation whereas covert sensitisation does not. Another difference is that covert sensitisation
creates an unpleasant association (vomiting in the Glover study) whereas imaginal desensitisation
reduces the emotions associated with an event.

(d) All part (d) questions in Section A require a discussion of advantages and disadvantages and a
conclusion, and this question part was no exception. Further, the advantages and disadvantages
must be related to the question, in this instance covert sensitisation. There were a small number of
answers achieving full marks, with many candidates not relating their answer to the topic area.
Summaries were often included rather than conclusions.

Question 2

(a) The important term that was essential to be addressed in this question was the term ‘perceived’
because this means that the experience of crowding can vary from one individual to another. Many
candidates included this and scored full marks. Others did not show sufficient understanding of the
term.

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) Answers to this question were frequently awarded full marks for stating the difference between the
two terms. Candidates understood that human density involves people whereas spatial density is
about the physical location, and with regard to consumer psychology, the number of fixtures and
fittings of a store, or the amount of merchandise in the store, for example.

(ii) This question asked about the questionnaire used by Machleit et al. to gather data about perceived
crowding. Many candidates gave non-specific and general answers such as ‘it included a number
of questions’. The questionnaire used a Likert-type scale, scale range 1–7, asking questions like
‘the store seemed very crowded to me’ each of which would score 1 mark.

(c) Many candidates were unable to suggest a model of the effects of ambience and this restricted
their marks. Some candidates suggested models of personal space, which also could not be
awarded marks. Some candidates suggested the cognition-emotion model, which was applicable,
but the strongest answers suggested the Mehrabian and Russell PAD model which is directly
applicable. This model considers the levels of Arousal, Pleasure and Dominance (the amount of
control a person feels over a situation). This model, applied to the effects of crowding, earned
some candidates maximum marks.

(d) Many answers included two strengths and two weaknesses of questionnaires, but only scored
partial marks because, frequently, answers were not related to the effects of crowding (or even
consumer behaviour) as the question required. An answer might be ‘one strength (of using a
questionnaire) is that it produces quantitative data which can be statistically analysed’. This is
correct but it would not receive full credit without being related to the question, because it could
apply to any question from any topic area rather than this specific question.

Question 3

(a) All candidates had some knowledge about the Funhaler device and all scored at least one mark.
Answers whose description was more detailed, such as adding more than one point, or that it
included a whistle and spinner not included in other devices, were awarded full marks.

(b) At the top end of the mark range, answers were referring to positive reinforcement, Skinner and
operant conditioning, and often explained fully how the spinner and whistle were reinforcers. There
were some weak answers at the bottom end of the mark range suggesting nothing more than it is a
behavioural device because it involves behaviour.

(c) Answers which were not outlined by Watt et al. were acceptable, but candidates suggesting these
often failed to provide any more detail than a single sentence. Although this earned one mark (for
each suggestion), answers needed detail to elaborate to gain two marks. For example, a one mark
answer might be ‘children don’t take their medicine because they do not like the taste’ whereas a
two mark answer might be ‘children apply rational non-adherence: they do not like the taste of the
medicine so make the logical decision that they would rather not take the medicine than suffer the
bad taste.’

(d) Many candidates scored no marks or very few marks because they did not answer the question
set. The question was specifically ‘studies on non-adherence in children’ but responses were often
a general discussion on using children in psychological studies, using AS level studies rather than
those specifically relating to adherence. Any advantage or disadvantage must be focussed on the
question in order to achieve marks.

Question 4

(a) There were some excellent explanations of the quality of working life (QWL), most referring to QWL
as ‘satisfaction with personal and working needs’. Alternatively, there were answers which merely
stated that quality of working life is about the quality a person has in their life at work. Repeating or
rewording the question cannot be credited.

(b) An outline of two features used to assess QWL were required. Some candidates were not able to
demonstrate any knowledge, but others identified a feature (one mark) and then provided an
outline to explain the feature (two marks). A maximum mark answer was typically: ‘One feature is
social integration (one mark) which refers to the interpersonal relationships a worker has with other
workers at work’ (two marks).

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) (i) A small number of candidates confused reliability with validity, which couldn’t be credited. Some
answers were brief, with nothing more written than ‘use test-retest’ for limited credit. Others wrote
‘give the questionnaire to other workers’ which is incorrect because to test reliability, the same
questionnaire should be given to the same workers at a later date (i.e. test re-test).

(ii) Many candidates did not make a suggestion and some suggestions were vague, but top marks
went to those who suggested using concurrent validity, comparing the results of the QWL test with
some other measure of satisfaction. Other measures such as the job descriptive index (JDI) or the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire were appropriate.

(d) This question part followed on from the theme introduced in the stem and asked for advantages
and disadvantages of using a five-point scale to measure job satisfaction. Relevant advantages
and disadvantages were given, but often these were not always related to the QWL questionnaire
(or any other measure). Any advantage or disadvantage must be focussed on the question in order
to achieve marks.

Section B

Question 5

(a) This question did not receive many strong responses . The question asked for an investigation into
the long-term effectiveness of applied tension. A few candidates knew that applied tension is used
to treat blood/injection phobia and planned very good studies. The main weakness was that many
candidates did not know what applied tension is used for. It was commonly assumed that it is a
treatment for phobias and so a study was planned comparing applied tension with systematic
desensitisation (or some other way to reduce anxiety). The problem is that applied tension raises
blood pressure whereas other techniques lower blood pressure through relaxation.

(b) The psychological evidence included in this question part needed to focus specifically on applied
tension and blood/injection phobia. Whilst a few candidates did this, many candidates wrote about
many different kinds of phobias, which was not relevant to the question.

Question 6

(a) Most candidates opted to plan a field experiment, which was a logical choice given the question.
Designs were often impressive because the complex IV had to include three conditions of
chocolate products placed in three different ways in a film clip. Some opted to place a product at
the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a film clip. Others chose to have the product held in the
hand, on a table, or an alternative location. The DV was often the number of times the product was
noticed when participants were asked in a later questionnaire. Overall, there were some very
strong answers.

(b) Methodologically some answers were very strong with detailed explanations for the choice of
placement, and many answers also focused on the controls that were applied. Some answers
needed to explain the plan in more detail, rather than a single sentence statement. Such answers
listed things like ‘I used an opportunity sample’ without any further comment, but an explanation is
required. Psychological knowledge was very strong in many answers, with candidates often
explaining how the study on product placement by Auty and Lewis related to their plan.

Question 7

(a) This question on age differences in non-adherence allowed candidates a free choice of method
with many choosing to make the study an experiment. However, the consequence of this was that
the IV was often muddled between different ages and different reasons. The easier choice, as done
by a small number of candidates, was the use of a questionnaire (or an interview), which asked
participants of different ages to choose one reason for their non-adherence from a range of
different possibilities. Taking time to think about the most appropriate method to use and thinking
the plan through before starting to write is time well spent. It is also worth noting that an experiment
cannot automatically be applied easily to every question that is set.

(b) Direction to what psychological evidence to use to investigate reasons for non-adherence was
provided in the stem of the question, which stated: ‘the health belief model provides many reasons

© 2021
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9990 Psychology November 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

to explain non-adherence’. Yet most candidates overlooked this and invented reasons of their own.
These reasons were usually not based on psychological knowledge. A few candidates opted to
write about rational non-adherence and this was creditworthy. Methodologically most experiments
were not well planned with confused IVs. The methodology for questionnaires was often good,
although the reasons for choosing to use open-ended questions for example was often
insufficiently detailed.

Question 8

(a) This question also gave a free choice of method, and again an experiment was chosen to be
applied by most candidates. Most of these candidates chose to have an IV of ‘with targets’ and
‘without targets’ and a DV of ‘level of motivation’ which was good. What was lacking was
knowledge of target setting, such as the five features of SMART targets, with many candidates
referring to no more than ‘target setting’ throughout. The plan should be based on the
psychological knowledge explained in part (b). If an experiment is chosen, it is important to include
all the specific features (type, IV, DV, controls, design) and also to include a number of general
features, such as the sample and sampling technique, the type of data to be gathered and
appropriate ethical guidelines.

(b) Methodologically most answers were good but could have been made better with more explanation
of the reasons for design decisions. The psychological evidence should have focused on Latham
and Locke’s goal setting theory and their SMART targets (where targets should be specific,
measurable, attainable/agreed, realistic/relevant and time-based). A few answers focused on this
work but many did not, instead focusing on the word ‘motivation’ and writing about Maslow and his
hierarchy which was not relevant.

Section C

Question 9

The main debate here was whether the psychoanalytic explanation of phobias could be generalised to
everyone, with an additional debate about case studies. There were three types of answers. Firstly, some
candidates focused exclusively on the study of Charles, and although advantages and disadvantages of
case studies were provided, the psychoanalytic component was absent. Secondly, there was a debate about
phobias in general, with reference to little Albert and classical conditioning. Again, there was an absence of
the psychoanalytic approach. The third type did include the work of Freud, but often did not go beyond the
work of little Hans. Only a few candidates realised that the Psychoanalytic/Freudian explanation of phobias
applies to all, suggesting that phobias are due to the id, ego and superego.

Question 10

There were some strong answers in response to this question, showing that candidates knew about eye-
tracking, a quantitative, ‘scientific’ measure that can be used when studying menu item position. The debate
was whether this alone was sufficient without the need for qualitative data, or whether people should be
asked about what they look at and why when studying a menu. Some detailed answers addressed this
debate, but others were superficial, often making vague points that were unrelated to menu design.

Question 11

This question linked unrealistic optimism, outlined by Weinstein with preventing stress. The debate would
logically be that those who are unrealistically optimistic would not need to prevent stress, and those that are
not unrealistically optimistic would consider doing something to prevent stress. Whilst a few candidates were
able to debate this, others struggled due to lack of knowledge about unrealistic optimism, preventing stress
or both.

Question 12

The words ‘need to achieve’ in the question should have focused minds on the syllabus section of
achievement motivation and the work of McClelland (1965). McClelland argues that a need for achievement
is very important in working life, as is the need for affiliation (to work with and enjoy friendships with work
colleagues). Consequently, earning money is less relevant. However, many candidates did not address this
and focused on Maslow and his hierarchy of needs.

© 2021