Examiner's Report – June 2023

An examiner’s report explains how real students performed in the exam, which questions were answered well or badly, and what examiners were actually looking for. It is basically a guide to “how to get the marks” from the people who award them.

Big messages across the 2023 series

• Know every core study in depth. Examiners can ask about any part of a core study: aim, sample, procedure details, results, conclusions and applications, not just the headline ideas.
• Read the whole question carefully. Marks are often lost because candidates ignore key phrases such as “in this study”, “using data”, “name one” or “refer to your answer in part (a)”.
• Use psychological terminology accurately. High-level answers use terms like “independent measures”, “ecological validity”, “quantitative data”, “targeted helping” and then back them up with a clear example from a core study.
• Plan the final essay question. Paper 1 essays must give two strengths and two weaknesses of the named study, with at least one point about the named issue (for example, reliability or use of independent measures), all explained in depth.

Common mistakes examiners highlighted

• Mixing up results and conclusions. A result is the actual data from the study; a conclusion is the overall message drawn from those results. Giving a conclusion when the question asks for a result (or vice versa) loses marks.
• Not contextualising answers. When a question says “in this study” or gives a scenario, you must include a specific example from the named study (e.g. buttons in Saavedra & Silverman, tools in Yamamoto, or the subway train in Piliavin).
• Very weak or incorrect “real-world applications”. Applications must be prospective (how findings could be used to improve something in the real world), not just descriptions of everyday behaviour or suggestions for more research.
• Superficial comparisons between studies. For similarity/difference questions, simple sentences like “both used lab experiments” are not enough. You need to explain the point and support it with evidence from both studies.
• Not knowing the assumptions of each approach. Many candidates struggled to state basic assumptions for the cognitive, social, learning and biological approaches, even though these are clearly listed in the syllabus.

Paper-specific tips

• Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) – be precise with details of core studies (samples, procedures and data); practise writing evaluation points that use examples from the named study and deliberately link to the named issue in the question.
• Paper 2 (Research Methods) – practise applying research-methods knowledge to new scenarios: identifying and operationalising variables, choosing appropriate designs and samples, explaining reliability and validity, and designing full studies in Question 10.
• Papers 3 & 4 (Options) – know studies, theories and treatments from the options well enough to evaluate them using issues like generalisability, ethics, reductionism/holism, usefulness and research methods.

How to turn this into marks

• Before practising a past paper: skim the relevant section of the report (for that paper + year) and note what examiners wanted for each question type.
• After writing an answer: compare your answer to the examiner’s comments. Ask: “Did I use the named issue? Did I give specific examples from the correct study? Is my ‘conclusion’ actually a conclusion?”
• Build a personal checklist. For example, for 10-mark evaluation essays: “2 strengths, 2 weaknesses, one on the named issue, each with at least two specific bits of evidence from the study.”

This summary focuses on the Psychology 9990 June 2023 Principal Examiner Reports and is designed to support self-study – always use it alongside the syllabus and mark schemes when revising.