AI-assisted English content review; independent teacher approval pending.
Practice scope and review
Original, AI-authored English practice with worked guidance. Selected topics only; independent teacher review is pending. This is not a complete syllabus, official past-paper collection or predicted exam score. Check your own exam-board specification: these concepts are not certified against a particular board or exam year.
161 original questions across 22 selected topic areas. No account or payment required to practise.
Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology (9990), examination year 2027: AI-assisted conceptual alignment to official sources, not teacher or exam-board certification. Syllabus mapping and remaining coverage.
5 questions in this topic
Exact English revisions checked in an AI-assisted academic review; independent teacher approval is still pending.
All topics
Original multipart written practice. Partial section/study-heading support; not an official paper, complete option course or practical assessment. Teacher review pending.
Subtopics in this topic (5)
North: evenings, customers and generalisation
Robson: imagined tables versus observed spending
Hall: detecting a switched preference
Becker: what the public evidence supports
Snyder and DeBono: study 3 is not a purchase experiment
5 of 5 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1Cambridge's official North et al. (2003) summary describes 393 diners over 18 evenings: 120 classical, 142 pop and 131 no music. Conditions were counterbalanced by weekday. Reported mean total spend was GBP32.51, GBP29.46 and GBP29.73 respectively. (a) Identify the manipulation and outcome. (b) Evaluate the claim that classical music makes every diner spend more, considering ecological validity and condition allocation. (c) Explain what the comparison cannot establish about mechanism and ethics.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721441-2027-reference-list.pdf#page=19
Reading scope: Official Cambridge detailed study summary, not the original empirical paper.6 indicative marks
Cambridge's official North et al. (2003) summary describes 393 diners over 18 evenings: 120 classical, 142 pop and 131 no music. Conditions were counterbalanced by weekday. Reported mean total spend was GBP32.51, GBP29.46 and GBP29.73 respectively. (a) Identify the manipulation and outcome. (b) Evaluate the claim that classical music makes every diner spend more, considering ecological validity and condition allocation. (c) Explain what the comparison cannot establish about mechanism and ethics.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721441-2027-reference-list.pdf#page=19
Reading scope: Official Cambridge detailed study summary, not the original empirical paper.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
North: evenings, customers and generalisation: explicitly supported selected aspects only. Partial content-section/study-heading support, not all underlying leaf requirements or complete key-study/option coverage. Written planning is not hands-on performance or teacher approval. No Clinical or Health option placement.
The manipulation was the restaurant soundtrack, not an assigned preference or a personality type. The outcome was expenditure per customer; 393 diners were not 393 independently randomised soundtrack sessions.
Claim: classical music increases spending universally. Evidence: this restaurant's classical condition had the largest mean. Natural transactions strengthen relevance to actual buying and weekday counterbalancing reduces one scheduling alternative. However, people attended different evenings, so customer composition and other evening events remain possible influences. Judgement: the comparison supports a bounded situational account, not a gain for every diner or restaurant.
An upmarket association is a proposed explanation; the spend measure does not directly establish that association as a mediator. Unaware diners may behave naturally, but reduced reactivity does not provide informed consent. Ethical evaluation and ecological validity must therefore be weighed separately, not collapsed into 'natural means ethical'.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Identify soundtrack style/silence as the manipulation.
(a) Identify mean total monetary spend per customer as the outcome.
(b) Weekday counterbalancing reduces scheduling differences but does not equate all diners/evenings.
(b) Higher group mean does not establish an increase for every diner or setting.
(c) Upmarket associations remain an unmeasured explanation; unaware participation raises a separate consent concern.
Examiner tip
These values follow Cambridge's summary; do not silently mix differently rounded tables.
Question 2Robson et al. (2011) obtained 1,013 valid web-survey responses. Respondents were randomly assigned images of tables 6, 12 or 24 inches apart and a business, friend or romantic scenario. Tight spacing produced negative responses; arousal did not differ significantly across distances. (a) Explain the design's two manipulated factors. (b) Evaluate saying six-inch spacing was shown to reduce real restaurant purchases. (c) Explain how privacy and arousal findings constrain an interpretation.
Primary reading: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/entities/publication/ccec483e-8936-49a5-83db-3087033c50ff
Reading scope: Cornell repository record and abstract; full primary paper mirror listed below.
Full primary paper mirror: https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Robson-Kimes-Becker-Evans-2011.pdf6 indicative marks
Robson et al. (2011) obtained 1,013 valid web-survey responses. Respondents were randomly assigned images of tables 6, 12 or 24 inches apart and a business, friend or romantic scenario. Tight spacing produced negative responses; arousal did not differ significantly across distances. (a) Explain the design's two manipulated factors. (b) Evaluate saying six-inch spacing was shown to reduce real restaurant purchases. (c) Explain how privacy and arousal findings constrain an interpretation.
Primary reading: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/entities/publication/ccec483e-8936-49a5-83db-3087033c50ff
Reading scope: Cornell repository record and abstract; full primary paper mirror listed below.
Full primary paper mirror: https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Robson-Kimes-Becker-Evans-2011.pdf
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Robson: imagined tables versus observed spending: explicitly supported selected aspects only. Partial content-section/study-heading support, not all underlying leaf requirements or complete key-study/option coverage. Written planning is not hands-on performance or teacher approval. No Clinical or Health option placement.
Three spacings crossed with three contexts produce nine conditions. Random assignment concerns the presented image and scenario; it does not make a web panel a random sample of all diners.
Claim: tight tables reduce actual purchases. Evidence: respondents judged an imagined seating arrangement, with tight spacing rated negatively. Standardised images help isolate spacing within the scenario but omit occupied tables, service and a real bill. Judgement: the study supports reported discomfort and behavioural intentions, not an observed purchase reduction or an established optimum profit layout.
Privacy and perceived crowding can vary while measured arousal does not differ significantly. Thus 'closer tables simply increase every emotional response' is not supported. The arousal null is not proof that no arousal effect is ever possible. Interpret the constructs separately and do not import spending findings from other research cited in the discussion.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Identify table spacing as one factor.
(a) Identify dining scenario as the other manipulated factor.
(b) Standardised images support controlled comparisons.
(b) Hypothetical responses are not observed purchases or real meal experiences.
(b) Withhold the claim of reduced purchases from the reported evidence.
(c) Distinguish privacy from arousal and a non-significant difference from proof of universal absence.
Examiner tip
Check whether a result belongs to this study or to literature cited by it.
Question 3Hall et al. (2010) asked supermarket visitors to taste jam and smell tea, choose a preferred sample and explain it after a covert switch on one trial. Overall detection, using several criteria, was 33.3% for manipulated jam trials and 32.2% for tea; concurrent detection was 14.4% and 13.8%. (a) Define choice blindness here. (b) Evaluate claiming that everyone consciously noticed the switch but lied. (c) Explain the importance of detection criteria and the ethical limits on applying the procedure.
Primary reading: https://houdekpetr.cz/!data/papers/Hall%20et%20al%202010.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
Hall et al. (2010) asked supermarket visitors to taste jam and smell tea, choose a preferred sample and explain it after a covert switch on one trial. Overall detection, using several criteria, was 33.3% for manipulated jam trials and 32.2% for tea; concurrent detection was 14.4% and 13.8%. (a) Define choice blindness here. (b) Evaluate claiming that everyone consciously noticed the switch but lied. (c) Explain the importance of detection criteria and the ethical limits on applying the procedure.
Primary reading: https://houdekpetr.cz/!data/papers/Hall%20et%20al%202010.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Hall: detecting a switched preference: explicitly supported selected aspects only. Partial content-section/study-heading support, not all underlying leaf requirements or complete key-study/option coverage. Written planning is not hands-on performance or teacher approval. No Clinical or Health option placement.
Choice blindness is missing the preference-outcome mismatch. Jam was tasted, tea smelled; the task did not measure visual impairment or make every product choice invalid.
Claim: all non-detectors were lying. Evidence: immediate detections were much less frequent than total detections, but the measures cannot directly reveal every unreported private thought. Some explanations could be reconstructed after the switch; this is not proof of intentional dishonesty. Judgement: the findings challenge perfect introspective access without justifying a universal motive or total absence of stable preferences.
Concurrent objections differ from later reports and sensory-change comments judged from recordings. Combining criteria increases detected trials; the reported percentages use different definitions, not contradictory results. The covert switch raises consent and deception concerns even though debriefing occurred. Analyse the published evidence only: do not stage deceptive taste tests, expose anyone to food risks or record real shoppers.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Define a missed mismatch between intended choice and presented outcome.
(b) Immediate detection was less frequent than detection under all criteria.
(b) A verbal report cannot establish every private thought or motive.
(b) Reject universal intentional lying while recognising limits to introspective reports.
(c) Separate concurrent, retrospective and sensory-change detections.
(c) Evaluate deception/consent concerns without proposing to repeat the switch.
Examiner tip
Total detection is not the same variable as immediate conscious objection.
Question 4Becker et al. (2011) studied yoghurt packaging in a supermarket entrance. The public publisher preview identifies 151 customers and shape curvature, colour saturation and measured design sensitivity. The author-lab abstract reports transfer of shape associations to taste experience, particularly for design-sensitive participants. (a) Identify a manipulated feature and a measured individual difference. (b) Evaluate saying colour alone made every participant rate the yoghurt stronger. (c) State what further evidence is needed for a complete account of the key study.
Primary reading: https://delftdesignlabs.org/food-design/publications/
Reading scope: Public author-lab abstract; selected publisher preview also checked. Full methods/results remain unavailable.6 indicative marks
Becker et al. (2011) studied yoghurt packaging in a supermarket entrance. The public publisher preview identifies 151 customers and shape curvature, colour saturation and measured design sensitivity. The author-lab abstract reports transfer of shape associations to taste experience, particularly for design-sensitive participants. (a) Identify a manipulated feature and a measured individual difference. (b) Evaluate saying colour alone made every participant rate the yoghurt stronger. (c) State what further evidence is needed for a complete account of the key study.
Primary reading: https://delftdesignlabs.org/food-design/publications/
Reading scope: Public author-lab abstract; selected publisher preview also checked. Full methods/results remain unavailable.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Becker: what the public evidence supports: explicitly supported selected aspects only. Partial content-section/study-heading support, not all underlying leaf requirements or complete key-study/option coverage. Written planning is not hands-on performance or teacher approval. No Clinical or Health option placement.
Packaging shape and colour are design features. Design sensitivity is an assessed consumer characteristic, not a randomly assigned training treatment. The public preview gives 151 customers; it does not establish representative sampling of all consumers.
Claim: colour alone uniformly strengthens taste. Evidence available here specifically emphasises shape transfer and moderation by design sensitivity. A prediction about saturation must not be presented as its confirmed result. Judgement: support the reported cross-sensory, person-dependent association but withhold exact colour effects, cell means and causal mediation claims until complete results can be inspected.
A complete key-study account requires the full manipulation/allocation procedure, taste-measure scoring, analysis of each predicted effect and discussion of alternatives. The public abstract and selected publisher snippets cannot establish all of those details. This is a bounded evidence exercise, not a complete primary-paper summary; no questionnaire items or undisclosed findings are supplied.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Identify shape or saturation as a packaging feature.
(a) Identify design sensitivity as a measured characteristic, not an assigned treatment.
(b) The available finding emphasises shape transfer and sensitivity differences.
(b) A saturation hypothesis is not itself a confirmed colour result.
(b) Withhold a uniform colour-only effect or unsupported mediation conclusion.
(c) Require full allocation, scoring and effect-specific results before claiming a complete key-study account.
Examiner tip
A named hypothesis in a preview is not automatically a supported finding.
Question 5In Snyder and DeBono (1985), study 3, participants previously classified by self-monitoring received a randomly assigned telephone message emphasising shampoo appearance or cleaning quality. Willingness to try was measured by two responses combined after standardisation. High self-monitors responded more favourably to the appearance appeal, low self-monitors to quality. (a) Distinguish allocated message from measured trait. (b) Evaluate the claim that the study proved personality causes shampoo sales. (c) Explain the benefits and limits of combining the willingness measures.
Primary reading: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232484481_Appeals_to_Image_and_Claims_About_Quality_Understanding_the_Psychology_of_Advertising
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
In Snyder and DeBono (1985), study 3, participants previously classified by self-monitoring received a randomly assigned telephone message emphasising shampoo appearance or cleaning quality. Willingness to try was measured by two responses combined after standardisation. High self-monitors responded more favourably to the appearance appeal, low self-monitors to quality. (a) Distinguish allocated message from measured trait. (b) Evaluate the claim that the study proved personality causes shampoo sales. (c) Explain the benefits and limits of combining the willingness measures.
Primary reading: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232484481_Appeals_to_Image_and_Claims_About_Quality_Understanding_the_Psychology_of_Advertising
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Snyder and DeBono: study 3 is not a purchase experiment: explicitly supported selected aspects only. Partial content-section/study-heading support, not all underlying leaf requirements or complete key-study/option coverage. Written planning is not hands-on performance or teacher approval. No Clinical or Health option placement.
Message content was allocated; self-monitoring was measured beforehand. Random message assignment does not turn personality classification into an experimental manipulation.
Claim: personality caused actual sales. Evidence: willingness responses differed with message and trait. A measured trait can covary with other characteristics, and an intention to try is not purchase, use or satisfaction. Judgement: the interaction supports matching appeals to self-presentation orientations under these conditions, not inevitable buying or a causal personality treatment.
Standardising before summing prevents a percentage response from dominating a shorter rating scale merely because of its units. Agreement between the two responses supports convergence for willingness, but both are self-reports elicited in the same interaction. Their combination cannot validate sales behaviour or remove demand effects. No scale items, telephone script or published advert copy are reproduced.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Message content was randomly assigned.
(a) Self-monitoring group was measured beforehand.
(b) Appeal response depended on the trait group in the reported interaction.
(b) Measured personality and willingness cannot establish personality-caused sales.
(c) Standardisation avoids a percentage scale dominating through its units.
(c) Correlated self-reports still share demand/construct limits and do not validate purchase behaviour.
Examiner tip
Study 3 concerns willingness to try; do not substitute study 2's willingness to pay.
