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.
14 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 (14)
Needs: hierarchy versus individual profiles
Goals and expectancy: an attractive but unreachable reward
Leadership: attributes, behaviour and adaptation
Leadership style is not the leader's gender
Followers: constructive challenge versus passive agreement
Group decisions: unanimity without scrutiny
Performance: loafing and electronic presence
Conflict: choosing a response rather than a fixed type
Open-plan work: several changes, one productivity claim
Working time: exposure is not a raw incident count
Accident prevention: incentives can distort reporting
Satisfaction: more tasks or more meaningful responsibility?
Measuring satisfaction without copying an instrument
Attitudes: justification is not a confession
14 of 14 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1A fictional employee values secure hours, friendly colleagues and a challenging project at the same time. (a) Apply Maslow's needs account to two of these preferences. (b) Evaluate claiming that achievement matters only after every lower need is completely satisfied, comparing McClelland. (c) Explain how fictional worker profiles could distinguish the accounts without diagnosing real employees.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=45
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional employee values secure hours, friendly colleagues and a challenging project at the same time. (a) Apply Maslow's needs account to two of these preferences. (b) Evaluate claiming that achievement matters only after every lower need is completely satisfied, comparing McClelland. (c) Explain how fictional worker profiles could distinguish the accounts without diagnosing real employees.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=45
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Needs: hierarchy versus individual profiles: 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.
Secure hours can meet safety needs and colleagues belonging needs; challenge can support esteem or self-actualisation depending on its meaning. Maslow also includes physiological needs, so the hierarchy is not simply a ranking of job titles.
Claim: no achievement motive exists until lower needs are completely met. Scenario evidence shows concurrent preferences, although a fictional vignette cannot falsify a universal theory empirically. McClelland's achievement, affiliation and power motives offer differing individual profiles rather than a compulsory ladder. Judgement: neither account licenses imposing the same incentive on every worker.
Write paired fictional profiles with equally secure work but contrasting preferences for difficult projects and social contact. Specify predictions for each account and what pattern would challenge a rigid interpretation. Do not administer personality tests, label colleagues or treat the imagined pattern as a published Saeednia result.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Secure hours can serve safety needs.
(a) Friendly colleagues can serve belonging needs.
(b) Simultaneous preferences challenge a rigid all-or-nothing hierarchy.
(b) McClelland distinguishes achievement, affiliation and power rather than a fixed five-level sequence.
(b) Judge the theories as competing interpretations, not established facts from this vignette.
(c) Compare invented profiles with the same security but different achievement/affiliation priorities.
Examiner tip
Applying a theory to a vignette is not empirical confirmation of it.
Question 2A fictional team has a specific monthly target and a desirable reward, but staff believe the software makes the target unreachable and management may not honour the reward. (a) Distinguish expectancy from instrumentality. (b) Evaluate the claim that making the target harder will necessarily increase motivation, comparing goal-setting and Vroom. (c) Write a revised, testable goal with feedback for a synthetic task.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=45
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional team has a specific monthly target and a desirable reward, but staff believe the software makes the target unreachable and management may not honour the reward. (a) Distinguish expectancy from instrumentality. (b) Evaluate the claim that making the target harder will necessarily increase motivation, comparing goal-setting and Vroom. (c) Write a revised, testable goal with feedback for a synthetic task.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=45
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Goals and expectancy: an attractive but unreachable reward: 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.
Software constraints weaken effort-to-performance expectancy. Distrust of the promise weakens performance-to-reward instrumentality. Wanting the reward gives it positive valence but does not repair those other links.
Claim: harder goals always motivate. Goal-setting predicts advantages from specific challenging goals under appropriate conditions, not impossible demands without resources. Vroom highlights the employee's beliefs about the route to a valued outcome. Judgement: restoring capability and a credible promise matters before increasing difficulty; neither model predicts success from a slogan alone.
For an invented sorting exercise, propose correctly classifying 18 of 20 items by the end of the second practice session, with error-specific feedback after session one. Check the target against supplied synthetic baseline performance. Compare accuracy and completion separately; invent no actual employee records or achieved improvement.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Expectancy concerns effort leading to performance.
(a) Instrumentality concerns performance leading to the promised outcome.
(b) Positive reward valence cannot compensate automatically for low expectancy or instrumentality.
(b) Challenging specific goals require commitment, ability/resources and feedback.
(b) Recommend an attainable challenge with a credible reward link, not difficulty alone.
(c) Specify a measurable time-bound synthetic target and a scheduled feedback comparison.
Examiner tip
Wanting a reward is not the same as expecting effort to obtain it.
Question 3A fictional director is called a born leader, yet improves after learning to listen and delegates an unfamiliar problem to the team. (a) Contrast a great-person explanation with a behavioural explanation. (b) Evaluate attributing the whole improvement to charisma, considering adaptive challenges. (c) Describe a synthetic comparison that distinguishes observable leader behaviour from follower admiration.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional director is called a born leader, yet improves after learning to listen and delegates an unfamiliar problem to the team. (a) Contrast a great-person explanation with a behavioural explanation. (b) Evaluate attributing the whole improvement to charisma, considering adaptive challenges. (c) Describe a synthetic comparison that distinguishes observable leader behaviour from follower admiration.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Leadership: attributes, behaviour and adaptation: 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.
A great-person account emphasises exceptional attributes; behavioural explanations examine what leaders do. Listening and structuring work are observable actions, not proof of a biological leadership essence.
Claim: charisma caused the improvement. The vignette also changes listening, delegation and team input, so it cannot isolate charisma. Heifetz's adaptive perspective highlights challenges requiring people to learn, tolerate uncertainty and share responsibility rather than await a technical answer. Judgement: evaluate how behaviour fits the problem, not just whether followers admire the director.
Construct matched fictional meeting narratives with task structure fixed and listening varied. Define a listening code, such as explicitly considering a dissenting suggestion, and keep admiration as a different synthetic response. Discuss the risk that an attractive leader biases all ratings. This does not establish the effectiveness of all Ohio/Michigan dimensions or Heifetz's six principles.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Great-person accounts locate leadership in exceptional personal attributes.
(a) Behavioural accounts focus on actions such as task structuring and consideration.
(b) Learning/listening in the vignette offers a situational alternative to innate charisma.
(b) Adaptive challenges require learning rather than merely applying a known technical solution.
(b) Conclude that admiration alone cannot isolate the cause of improved performance.
(c) Code specified behaviours in invented narratives separately from synthetic admiration ratings.
Examiner tip
A leader's popularity and the team's problem-solving are separate outcomes.
Question 4Cuadrado et al. found more favourable evaluations of their stereotypically feminine style bundle for leaders of either sex. A fictional manager concludes all women must use that style. (a) Distinguish a manipulated style description from the leader's sex. (b) Evaluate the manager's conclusion using the study and its limitations. (c) Apply Scouller's public, private and personal levels to a fictional leader's development.
Primary reading: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/172/17211106.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
Cuadrado et al. found more favourable evaluations of their stereotypically feminine style bundle for leaders of either sex. A fictional manager concludes all women must use that style. (a) Distinguish a manipulated style description from the leader's sex. (b) Evaluate the manager's conclusion using the study and its limitations. (c) Apply Scouller's public, private and personal levels to a fictional leader's development.
Primary reading: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/172/17211106.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Leadership style is not the leader's gender: 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 study varied leader sex and a bundle of leadership behaviours independently. Calling the bundles stereotypically masculine/feminine describes a social stereotype, not the behaviour every man or woman naturally displays.
Claim: all women must lead one way. Evidence: the more participative, relationship-oriented bundle was evaluated more favourably for both sexes, while leader sex and its interaction with style did not show the predicted effects. Student responses to a narrative do not establish every workplace's demands. Judgement: assess useful behaviours and context, not gender prescriptions.
In a fictional development plan, public leadership could involve clarifying purpose with the whole team; private leadership could involve one-to-one feedback. Personal leadership could involve examining habits and practising self-management before either interaction. These levels organise development; they do not convert a narrative evaluation into proof of improved performance or cover all Muczyk/Reimann styles.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Style describes behaviour; the named leader's sex is a separate factor.
(b) The favourable style result occurred for both male and female leader descriptions.
(b) Narrative evaluations do not establish natural sex differences in leadership ability.
(b) Context and student evaluators limit universal workplace conclusions.
(c) Public leadership concerns the group, private leadership individual interactions.
(c) Personal development concerns the leader's own capacities and self-management, not simply private meetings.
Examiner tip
A stereotype used in a manipulation is not a recommended stereotype for practice.
Question 5A fictional team member works hard but never questions the leader; another contributes actively and challenges a weak assumption respectfully. (a) Apply Kelley's two followership dimensions. (b) Evaluate rating follower quality only by obedience, considering leader self-reports and cultural context. (c) Design an original written comparison without copying the Leadership Practices Inventory or profiling employees.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional team member works hard but never questions the leader; another contributes actively and challenges a weak assumption respectfully. (a) Apply Kelley's two followership dimensions. (b) Evaluate rating follower quality only by obedience, considering leader self-reports and cultural context. (c) Design an original written comparison without copying the Leadership Practices Inventory or profiling employees.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=46
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Followers: constructive challenge versus passive agreement: 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.
Both fictional people may be active, but the second also demonstrates independent critical thinking. The two dimensions must not be reduced to a single obedience score; conformist and effective/exemplary patterns differ in thinking despite activity.
Claim: obedience is sufficient evidence of quality. The scenario shows why a committed follower may help the group by identifying a weak assumption. A leader's own report of encouraging challenge may differ from followers' experience, and public disagreement has culturally variable meanings. Judgement: assess contribution and the quality of reasoning rather than compliance alone.
Create original narratives showing proposing alternatives, checking evidence and supporting agreed action. Define these behaviours before comparing fictional ratings from leader and follower perspectives. Discuss agreement versus validity without reproducing LPI items or claiming the original categories form a validated psychometric instrument. All five LPI practices and all five Kelley styles still require wider study.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Distinguish active engagement from passive involvement.
(a) Distinguish independent critical thinking from uncritical dependence.
(b) Active compliance can lack independent scrutiny and allow errors to persist.
(b) Leader self-reports may reflect self-presentation rather than follower experience.
(b) Judge constructive challenge in its context, not all dissent as disloyalty.
(c) Code fictional challenge/support behaviours with original categories and independent synthetic ratings.
Examiner tip
Independent thinking and participation are different dimensions.
Question 6A fictional project team has settled its working rules. Its leader announces a preferred supplier, everyone suppresses doubts and no alternatives are checked. (a) Distinguish norming from performing in group development. (b) Evaluate interpreting unanimity as evidence of a sound decision, using groupthink. (c) Plan a synthetic decision procedure that improves scrutiny without assigning real people fixed team-role labels.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional project team has settled its working rules. Its leader announces a preferred supplier, everyone suppresses doubts and no alternatives are checked. (a) Distinguish norming from performing in group development. (b) Evaluate interpreting unanimity as evidence of a sound decision, using groupthink. (c) Plan a synthetic decision procedure that improves scrutiny without assigning real people fixed team-role labels.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Group decisions: unanimity without scrutiny: 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.
Tuckman's forming, storming, norming, performing and later adjourning describe possible group development, not an inevitable timetable. Settled rules suggest norming but do not prove effective task performance.
Claim: unanimity guarantees quality. Evidence in the vignette is suppressed doubt and missing alternatives, consistent with self-censorship and an illusion of agreement. Real informed consensus could also be unanimous. Judgement: use the process evidence to question this decision, without diagnosing every cohesive team as suffering groupthink.
For a written simulation, require private initial judgements on three fictional suppliers, independent risk lists and a designated challenge stage before a shared decision. Compare coverage of alternatives and justified risk assessment, not just speed or unanimity. Belbin roles can suggest complementary contributions but are not fixed identities or a licence to administer copied inventories. No real recruitment decisions occur.
(b) Agreement alone cannot distinguish informed consensus from groupthink.
(c) Obtain independent fictional judgements before leader preference is disclosed.
(c) Compare documented alternatives/risks, allowing challenge rather than merely counting votes.
Examiner tip
Decision quality depends on how agreement was reached, not only its size.
Question 7A fictional team contributes fewer ideas per member when individual output is hidden. Separately, Claypoole and Szalma's experiment 1 found better signal detection under believed electronic monitoring. (a) Distinguish social loafing from social facilitation. (b) Evaluate treating these as contradictory universal laws. (c) Design a paper-only comparison of identifiability using synthetic team outputs, with no cameras or employee monitoring.
Primary reading: https://sciences.ucf.edu/psychology/perl/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/08/Claypoole-Szalma-2019-Electronic-performance-monitoring-sustained-attn_Social-facilitation-for-modern-applications.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
Performance: loafing and electronic presence: 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.
Social loafing concerns effort when individual contribution is less identifiable; social facilitation concerns effects of social presence or evaluation on performance. The terms are not opposites measured by any group-versus-alone contrast.
Claim: the cases contradict each other. The fictional collective task hides individual output, whereas Claypoole's vigilance task made evaluation salient. Drive and evaluation-apprehension accounts predict effects sensitive to task and context, not uniformly beneficial observation. Judgement: identify the mechanism and conditions before comparing apparent directions, and avoid assuming culture fixes every individual's effort.
Create matched synthetic teams with the same members, time and idea-quality rubric. Vary only whether invented contributions are separately labelled or pooled. Compare per-member output with quality as a separate measure. Do not install cameras, gather work logs or reproduce the original deceptive monitoring arrangement; no Earley outcome is claimed.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Loafing concerns reduced individual effort in collective work.
(a) Facilitation concerns performance changes associated with others' presence/evaluation.
(b) Hidden contributions and evaluative monitoring create different conditions.
(b) Task demands and cultural/group identification can qualify the predictions.
(b) Conclude that neither finding implies improvement or impairment in every group task.
(c) Hold synthetic group size/task constant and compare individually attributable versus pooled output.
Examiner tip
A group setting alone does not identify social loafing.
Question 8Two fictional departments compete for a deadline slot, while one team member privately struggles between speed and accuracy. (a) Distinguish inter-group from intra-individual conflict. (b) Evaluate saying collaboration is always the best Thomas-Kilmann mode, comparing an urgent and a recurring dispute. (c) Plan a written analysis of fictional incidents that distinguishes conflict from bullying without soliciting disclosures.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
Two fictional departments compete for a deadline slot, while one team member privately struggles between speed and accuracy. (a) Distinguish inter-group from intra-individual conflict. (b) Evaluate saying collaboration is always the best Thomas-Kilmann mode, comparing an urgent and a recurring dispute. (c) Plan a written analysis of fictional incidents that distinguishes conflict from bullying without soliciting disclosures.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=47
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Conflict: choosing a response rather than a fixed type: 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.
Inter-group conflict is between groups; intra-individual conflict is within a person's competing goals. Inter-individual and intra-group levels are additional distinctions, not synonyms for those two.
Claim: collaboration is always optimal. It can address both departments' interests in a recurring resource problem, but an urgent decision may not permit lengthy exploration. Compromise shares concessions, accommodation prioritises the other, competition asserts one's own concerns and avoidance defers engagement. Judgement: select a mode for the circumstances rather than labelling a worker's character from one response.
Write artificial incidents and code disagreement, repeated targeting and unequal ability to defend oneself separately. One argument is insufficient evidence of bullying; equally, calling repeated targeting a disagreement can conceal harm. Analyse the fictional record only, without asking for real allegations, naming colleagues or reproducing the Thomas-Kilmann instrument.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Department rivalry is inter-group conflict.
(a) Competing goals within one person are intra-individual conflict.
(b) Collaboration seeks both parties' concerns but requires time and willingness.
(b) Competing, avoiding, accommodating or compromising can fit different stakes/constraints.
(b) Judge the response by context and power, not a permanently best personal style.
(c) Code repetition/power imbalance separately from disagreement using invented incidents only.
Examiner tip
A conflict-handling mode is not a diagnosis or an excuse for mistreatment.
Question 9An invented company moves to an open-plan office while changing software and introducing daily manager visits. Synthetic output rises for a week. (a) Explain a possible Hawthorne-effect interpretation. (b) Evaluate attributing the rise uniquely to office design, considering concentration and communication. (c) Plan a written longitudinal comparison using synthetic office records only.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=48
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
An invented company moves to an open-plan office while changing software and introducing daily manager visits. Synthetic output rises for a week. (a) Explain a possible Hawthorne-effect interpretation. (b) Evaluate attributing the rise uniquely to office design, considering concentration and communication. (c) Plan a written longitudinal comparison using synthetic office records only.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=48
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Open-plan work: several changes, one productivity claim: 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.
A Hawthorne-effect account suggests that being attended to or studied may alter performance. It is an alternative explanation, not a finding that every improvement comes from observation.
Claim: the layout caused the output rise. The scenario changes software and manager contact simultaneously. Easier communication might help some work while interruptions hinder concentration on other tasks. Judgement: a short, multiply confounded increase cannot isolate the physical layout or establish a lasting benefit.
Specify several matched synthetic baseline and follow-up periods and a comparison office with unchanged layout but the same software/contact schedule. Define completed units and error rates separately; inspect trends and missing records. Written records do not simulate every acoustic or social property of an office, and no actual employee output or surveillance data are collected.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Awareness of attention or study may change behaviour independently of the physical redesign.
(b) Software and manager visits confound the layout change.
(b) Open-plan communication benefits may coexist with interruption/privacy costs.
(b) A one-week rise cannot establish a durable layout effect.
(c) Specify comparable pre/post intervals and a suitable synthetic comparison office.
(c) Separate quantity/quality and document other changes rather than treating invented records as real evidence.
Examiner tip
Attention to workers is an explanatory possibility, not a universal correction factor.
Question 10A synthetic rota changes every two days in one department and every four weeks in another; a third allows flexible start times. Invented error totals differ. (a) Distinguish rapid/slow rotation and flexitime. (b) Evaluate concluding that one schedule is safer from raw error totals alone. (c) Plan a paper-only comparison accounting for exposure, task difficulty and incomplete records.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=48
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A synthetic rota changes every two days in one department and every four weeks in another; a third allows flexible start times. Invented error totals differ. (a) Distinguish rapid/slow rotation and flexitime. (b) Evaluate concluding that one schedule is safer from raw error totals alone. (c) Plan a paper-only comparison accounting for exposure, task difficulty and incomplete records.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=48
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Working time: exposure is not a raw incident count: 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 two-day change is rapid relative to the four-week rotation. Flexitime provides scheduling flexibility; on-call arrangements require availability when needed rather than simply choosing a start time.
Claim: fewer errors proves a safer schedule. Raw counts ignore work hours, staffing and task difficulty; people may select schedules and differ before the comparison. Fatigue is a plausible explanation but is not directly established by this fictional record. Judgement: compare like exposure and work before drawing even an association, and avoid universal schedule prescriptions.
Create synthetic hours-worked and error columns for matched task periods. Calculate rates only where exposure is known; report missing observations separately rather than as zero errors. Discuss adaptation and time trends without manipulating sleep, prescribing work schedules or collecting personal health data. This is organisational rota analysis, not Health-option practice.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Rapid rotation changes shifts more frequently than slow rotation.
(a) Flexitime permits variation in working hours, unlike being available on call.
(b) Different hours at risk can produce different raw error totals.
(b) Task demands and worker selection can confound schedule comparisons.
(b) Withhold a universal causal safety ranking from the invented totals.
(c) Compare synthetic errors per equivalent hours on matched tasks, keeping missing records separate.
Examiner tip
A denominator can change the interpretation of an apparent safety difference.
Question 11In a fictional factory, an operator misses a check beside an ambiguous display. A proposed reward pays teams only when no incidents are reported. Swat argued for recording minor events as well as serious ones. (a) Distinguish omission from a system-design problem. (b) Evaluate interpreting fewer reports as proof of safer work. (c) Plan a synthetic monitoring audit without operating machinery or gathering injury records.
Primary reading: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/joh1996/39/2/39_2_100/_pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
In a fictional factory, an operator misses a check beside an ambiguous display. A proposed reward pays teams only when no incidents are reported. Swat argued for recording minor events as well as serious ones. (a) Distinguish omission from a system-design problem. (b) Evaluate interpreting fewer reports as proof of safer work. (c) Plan a synthetic monitoring audit without operating machinery or gathering injury records.
Primary reading: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/joh1996/39/2/39_2_100/_pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Accident prevention: incentives can distort reporting: 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.
Omission is leaving out an action; commission is an incorrect action, sequencing the wrong order and timing the wrong moment. A confusing display can contribute to an operator error, so a human/system distinction should guide investigation rather than automatic blame.
Claim: fewer reports proves safer work. Rewards contingent on silence can change reporting incentives. Swat's distinction between officially reported sick-leave accidents and more frequent minor incidents supports checking what the record omits. Only five of the 23 sick-leave cases were serious injuries requiring over 30 days' leave. Judgement: lower reports need corroboration through consistent definitions and exposure, not an assumption that a token economy removed hazards.
Audit invented logs with fixed categories for events, first-aid cases and lost-time accidents. Check duplicate events and hours at risk, then compare reporting completeness before interpreting rates. Rewarding verified safe processes rather than absence of reports could reduce concealment pressure, but is a proposal, not an observed Fox result. No machinery, actual injury files or identification of workers is involved.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Missing the check is omission, not necessarily a wrong act of commission.
(a) An ambiguous display is a potential system contribution rather than only personal carelessness.
(b) Zero-report rewards may suppress disclosure without reducing events.
(b) Swat's minor-event evidence shows official accident records can undercount risk.
(b) Judge safety using reporting quality and exposure, not only reported totals.
(c) Reconcile synthetic incident categories and denominators independently of rewards.
Examiner tip
An incentive can change the indicator before it changes the underlying risk.
Question 12A fictional job redesign adds three similar duties but no decision authority. Pay becomes fairer, yet reported enthusiasm remains low. (a) Distinguish enlargement from enrichment. (b) Evaluate the claim that improved pay and extra tasks guarantee satisfaction, using Herzberg and Hackman/Oldham. (c) Propose a written redesign and specify what synthetic outcomes would challenge its rationale.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=49
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
A fictional job redesign adds three similar duties but no decision authority. Pay becomes fairer, yet reported enthusiasm remains low. (a) Distinguish enlargement from enrichment. (b) Evaluate the claim that improved pay and extra tasks guarantee satisfaction, using Herzberg and Hackman/Oldham. (c) Propose a written redesign and specify what synthetic outcomes would challenge its rationale.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=49
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Satisfaction: more tasks or more meaningful responsibility?: 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.
Adding similar duties is enlargement. Enrichment increases meaningful control or responsibility; rotation moves people among tasks. A longer duty list is not automatically enrichment.
Claim: fairer pay plus more tasks guarantees enthusiasm. Herzberg distinguishes reducing dissatisfaction through hygiene factors from positive motivators such as achievement and responsibility. Hackman and Oldham connect skill variety, task identity/significance, autonomy and feedback to psychological states. Judgement: the vignette's low authority and repetitive additions may leave meaningfulness or responsibility unchanged, though no model guarantees every worker's response.
For a written proposal, assign responsibility for completing a whole fictional order with timely feedback on its quality, not simply more volume. Specify synthetic ratings of meaningfulness/responsibility separately from output and errors. Lack of those predicted changes would challenge the rationale; invented gains are not evidence that job enrichment has been implemented successfully.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Enlargement adds breadth at a similar responsibility level.
(a) Enrichment adds meaningful responsibility or autonomy rather than merely extra tasks.
(b) Removing a hygiene problem does not necessarily create Herzberg motivators.
(b) Autonomy/feedback and meaningful work matter in job-characteristics theory.
(b) Judge the redesign against individual needs and work constraints, not guaranteed satisfaction.
(c) Specify a responsibility/feedback change, separate synthetic satisfaction from output, and explain how unchanged meaningfulness or responsibility would challenge its rationale.
Examiner tip
Removing dissatisfaction and generating satisfaction are not identical claims.
Question 13Two fictional departments obtain the same overall satisfaction score, but differ in pay satisfaction and perceived opportunity to develop. (a) Explain why a facet measure such as the Job Descriptive Index may reveal more than one total. (b) Evaluate treating a reliable total as proof of valid, culture-free measurement, considering Walton's quality-of-working-life approach. (c) Plan a synthetic measurement check using original examples, not protected questionnaire items.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=49
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.6 indicative marks
Two fictional departments obtain the same overall satisfaction score, but differ in pay satisfaction and perceived opportunity to develop. (a) Explain why a facet measure such as the Job Descriptive Index may reveal more than one total. (b) Evaluate treating a reliable total as proof of valid, culture-free measurement, considering Walton's quality-of-working-life approach. (c) Plan a synthetic measurement check using original examples, not protected questionnaire items.
Primary reading: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=49
Reading scope: Official Cambridge 2027 syllabus: prescribed concepts, not an empirical findings report.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Measuring satisfaction without copying an instrument: 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.
A facet measure distinguishes aspects such as work, pay, promotion, supervision and coworkers. The same sum can arise from quite different profiles, requiring different organisational responses.
Claim: consistency proves a universal measure. Stable answers could consistently measure acquiescence or fear of criticism rather than satisfaction. Walton's quality-of-working-life approach includes wider conditions such as opportunities and rights, so it should not be treated as another name for pay liking. Judgement: reliability is useful but construct coverage and cultural interpretation need separate evidence.
Write original fictional descriptions for pay fairness and opportunity to develop, with explicit synthetic response anchors. Check coding consistency and whether invented contrasting profiles remain distinguishable. Do not copy JDI/QWL items, use published norms or ask employees for identifying responses. This exercise does not cover every Walton condition or validate a new survey.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Equal totals can hide different facet profiles.
(b) Reliability is consistency, not proof of measuring the intended construct.
(b) Walton's broader working-life conditions are not interchangeable with a single satisfaction total.
(b) Wording/response norms may alter interpretation across cultures.
(c) Define original facet descriptions and check agreement or stability on fictional responses.
(c) Examine whether the synthetic measure distinguishes the intended profiles without claiming validated JDI/QWL scoring.
Examiner tip
An instrument can be consistently wrong about the construct you care about.
Question 14Giacalone and Rosenfeld's public abstract reports ratings of sabotage justifications, not admissions of actual acts. A fictional employer also labels every absence as low commitment. (a) Distinguish attitudes from recorded behaviour. (b) Evaluate using either measure to identify disloyal individuals, considering the absenteeism/commitment distinction. (c) Propose an ethical paper-only analysis of synthetic organisational patterns.
Primary reading: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01018145
Reading scope: Public publisher abstract only; full methods/results remain unavailable.6 indicative marks
Giacalone and Rosenfeld's public abstract reports ratings of sabotage justifications, not admissions of actual acts. A fictional employer also labels every absence as low commitment. (a) Distinguish attitudes from recorded behaviour. (b) Evaluate using either measure to identify disloyal individuals, considering the absenteeism/commitment distinction. (c) Propose an ethical paper-only analysis of synthetic organisational patterns.
Primary reading: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01018145
Reading scope: Public publisher abstract only; full methods/results remain unavailable.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Attitudes: justification is not a confession: 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.
A justification rating measures expressed acceptability. Recorded behaviour concerns what occurred; even attendance records require context about reasons and opportunity.
Claim: these measures identify disloyal people. Giacalone's abstract concerns reported attitudes and does not establish actual sabotage. Blau and Boal distinguish commitment and involvement in explaining absence patterns; inability to attend is not the same as choosing to withdraw. Judgement: neither a general rating nor an isolated absence licenses an individual accusation.
Use invented groups differing in synthetic involvement and commitment descriptions, with voluntary/involuntary absence explicitly distinguished. Compare predicted patterns while listing transport or scheduling constraints as alternatives. Do not collect real absence reasons, allegations, employer files or personal disclosures, and do not describe methods of damaging a workplace.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) An acceptability rating is an attitude, not an observed act.
(b) The sabotage study's association does not identify actual offenders.
(b) Absence may be involuntary and need not imply low commitment.
(b) Commitment and involvement must not be inferred from attendance alone.
(b) Reject individual labels from aggregate or ambiguous indicators.
(c) Analyse non-identifying synthetic patterns with alternative explanations and no real allegations or attendance records.
Examiner tip
A plausible group-level association is not an individual guilt test.
