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)
Landry: study 1 changes reward meaning, not its amount
Cuadrado: testing a stereotype prediction
Claypoole and Szalma: experiment 1's believed monitoring
Swat: what accident records miss
Giacalone and Rosenfeld: the abstract's important exception
5 of 5 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1Landry et al. (2019), study 1, randomly assigned 123 French-speaking Canadian university students to autonomy-supportive (65) or controlling (58) instructions about the same $10 coffee-shop gift card. The task involved 25 four-letter anagrams in two minutes. Supportive-condition means were higher for intrinsic motivation (5.31 versus 4.56) and performance (.76 versus .54). (a) Identify the manipulated factor. (b) Evaluate saying larger cash rewards caused the better performance and that the mechanism is fully proved. (c) Explain two limits on applying the findings to workplaces.
Primary reading: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020_LandryZhangEtAl_ApplyingSDT.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.6 indicative marks
Landry et al. (2019), study 1, randomly assigned 123 French-speaking Canadian university students to autonomy-supportive (65) or controlling (58) instructions about the same $10 coffee-shop gift card. The task involved 25 four-letter anagrams in two minutes. Supportive-condition means were higher for intrinsic motivation (5.31 versus 4.56) and performance (.76 versus .54). (a) Identify the manipulated factor. (b) Evaluate saying larger cash rewards caused the better performance and that the mechanism is fully proved. (c) Explain two limits on applying the findings to workplaces.
Primary reading: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020_LandryZhangEtAl_ApplyingSDT.pdf
Reading scope: Public original paper or author-uploaded text; only the aspects stated in this exercise are covered.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Landry: study 1 changes reward meaning, not its amount: 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 independent variable was how the reward was presented: supportive appreciation versus controlling pressure. Both conditions offered the same $10 card. There was no no-reward condition or comparison of reward amounts in study 1.
Claim: more money caused the gain. Evidence: supportive instructions produced higher group means with reward amount held constant, and random assignment reduces systematic pre-existing differences. Table 3 separately reports a statistically supported condition -> intrinsic motivation -> performance indirect effect, with a bootstrap interval of 0.01 to 0.13, and an unsupported need satisfaction -> intrinsic motivation -> performance indirect effect, with an interval of -0.06 to 0.29. The significance of an individual fitted path is not by itself the test of an indirect effect. These are supplied reported results, not a request to calculate a statistical test. Judgement: distinguish the two model results, while recognising that measured mediators were not independently randomised and alternative causal explanations remain. The study does not show that all money harms motivation.
Students completing a two-minute task may respond differently from employees facing routine work and employment consequences. A gift-card manipulation cannot by itself establish durable effects of salaries or profit-sharing. Competence, autonomy and relatedness are theoretical needs, not clinical diagnoses; do not administer the published scales or run a controlling-reward exercise.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Instructions changed the functional meaning of the same reward, not its amount.
(b) Random assignment strengthens the instruction-condition comparison.
(b) The supplied intrinsic-motivation/performance means favour the supportive condition.
(b) Distinguish the supported condition-to-performance indirect effect through intrinsic motivation from the unsupported need-satisfaction-to-performance indirect effect; neither uniquely establishes a causal mechanism.
(c) Students on a brief anagram task do not represent every workplace/job.
(c) A short-term gift-card context does not establish lasting pay-system effects.
Examiner tip
An experimental condition effect does not make every proposed mediating path causal.
Question 2Cuadrado et al. (2008) randomly assigned 136 Spanish psychology students, 34 per condition, to leader narratives crossing male/female leader with stereotypically masculine/feminine style bundles. The feminine-style bundle received more favourable evaluations for both sexes. Leader sex and sex-by-style interaction were not significant for the reported leadership evaluations. (a) Identify the two manipulated factors. (b) Evaluate claiming women were shown to be inherently better leaders or uniquely penalised for masculine styles. (c) Explain one strength and one limitation of the narrative design.
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. (2008) randomly assigned 136 Spanish psychology students, 34 per condition, to leader narratives crossing male/female leader with stereotypically masculine/feminine style bundles. The feminine-style bundle received more favourable evaluations for both sexes. Leader sex and sex-by-style interaction were not significant for the reported leadership evaluations. (a) Identify the two manipulated factors. (b) Evaluate claiming women were shown to be inherently better leaders or uniquely penalised for masculine styles. (c) Explain one strength and one limitation of the narrative design.
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
Cuadrado: testing a stereotype prediction: 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.
Leader sex and style were crossed in a 2 by 2 design, giving four groups of 34. The evaluators' own sex was not randomly assigned. The style bundles combined behaviours, rather than manipulating just one listening action.
Claim: women were inherently better or uniquely penalised. Evidence: the participative/relationship-oriented bundle was rated more positively for both leader sexes, without the predicted sex-by-style pattern. Judgement: the reported results do not support either claim; non-significance also cannot prove gender bias is absent from all organisations or settings.
Keeping narrative context constant and randomising versions supports attribution to the described factors within the task. However, the manipulation bundles several behaviours, and students evaluate a description rather than work under the leader. Their ratings cannot isolate one decisive behaviour, establish actual effectiveness or prescribe leadership according to gender. The study is used here for organisational evaluation only, not health or clinical practice.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Identify leader sex and described leadership-style bundle as separate factors.
(b) Favourable style evaluations occurred for both male and female descriptions.
(b) The predicted unique penalty for women in masculine styles was not supported.
(b) Ratings of descriptions do not establish inherent sex differences in leadership ability.
(c) Matched narratives and random assignment improve experimental control.
(c) Bundled behaviours and student hypothetical judgements limit identification of a single behaviour and transfer to workplaces.
Examiner tip
Report whether a hypothesis was supported rather than substituting the hypothesis for a result.
Question 3Claypoole and Szalma (2019), experiment 1, used 106 undergraduates in two groups of 53. Electronic-presence participants believed a webcam and video recorder monitored them, but no video was recorded or streamed. During a 24-minute vigilance task, mean correct-detection proportions were .6906 versus .6038 for controls; false-alarm proportions were .0059 versus .0201. (a) Identify the condition contrast. (b) Evaluate saying a single webcam eliminated errors or vigilance decline. (c) Explain an ethical and an application limitation.
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
Claypoole and Szalma (2019), experiment 1, used 106 undergraduates in two groups of 53. Electronic-presence participants believed a webcam and video recorder monitored them, but no video was recorded or streamed. During a 24-minute vigilance task, mean correct-detection proportions were .6906 versus .6038 for controls; false-alarm proportions were .0059 versus .0201. (a) Identify the condition contrast. (b) Evaluate saying a single webcam eliminated errors or vigilance decline. (c) Explain an ethical and an application limitation.
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.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Claypoole and Szalma: experiment 1's believed monitoring: 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 combined two salient electronic-presence cues with instructions about evaluation. It was not a comparison of actual stored footage with live streaming, nor of webcam alone with recorder alone.
Claim: a single webcam eliminated errors. The supplied means show better detection and fewer false alarms, not perfect performance. Correct detections declined across periods in both conditions; the condition-by-period interaction was not significant. Judgement: experiment 1 supports a bounded facilitation effect of combined believed presence, not removal of the vigilance decrement or independent proof for either device.
No actual recording or streaming occurred, but misleading beliefs still matter for consent and trust; absence of recorded data does not erase deception. Short laboratory performance in students cannot establish the acceptability, workload or long-term consequences of surveillance at work. This is published-evidence evaluation only: do not install cameras, monitor employees or repeat the deceptive instructions.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Contrast believed combined webcam/video-recorder presence with completing the task alone.
(b) Detection improved and false alarms decreased in the presence condition.
(b) Experiment 1 cannot isolate the effect of a webcam alone.
(b) Detection still declined over time and false alarms were not eliminated.
(c) Belief about recording raises deception concerns even without stored footage.
(c) A student vigilance task cannot establish beneficial employee surveillance or real workplace effectiveness.
Examiner tip
Believing one is evaluated and actually being recorded are different manipulations.
Question 4Swat (1997) analysed 83 accidents from 1993 in four plants employing 2,964 workers, using reports, protocols and interviews. At least 45.8% involved housekeeping violations. A separate 1994 meat-processing investigation estimated at least 520 incidents, with only 23 lost-time accidents, and concluded about 95% were not reported under the accident system. (a) Distinguish accident frequency from severity. (b) Evaluate interpreting the 95% as a measured non-reporting rate in every industry. (c) Explain a monitoring improvement and its evidential limit.
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
Swat (1997) analysed 83 accidents from 1993 in four plants employing 2,964 workers, using reports, protocols and interviews. At least 45.8% involved housekeeping violations. A separate 1994 meat-processing investigation estimated at least 520 incidents, with only 23 lost-time accidents, and concluded about 95% were not reported under the accident system. (a) Distinguish accident frequency from severity. (b) Evaluate interpreting the 95% as a measured non-reporting rate in every industry. (c) Explain a monitoring improvement and its evidential limit.
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
Swat: what accident records miss: 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.
Frequency compares accidents with workforce exposure; severity compares days lost with accident count. A plant can have fewer accidents but more severe ones. The 2,964 workers are not 2,964 accident cases.
Claim: 95% non-reporting is a universal industrial constant. Evidence: the paper distinguishes its 1993 four-plant accident review from an additional 1994 meat-processing investigation with estimated minor incidents. The estimate depends partly on interviews and which events count as official accidents. Judgement: the study demonstrates a potentially serious reporting gap in its context, not a precise rate for every plant or a direct measure of concealment intent.
Record minor injuries, event type and circumstances as well as lost-time accidents, including housekeeping contributions. A broader definition may raise reported totals while improving information, so rising reports need not mean rising danger. Follow-up would be needed to show that subsequent actions prevent events; no actual injury records, site inspections or machinery operation are required here.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Frequency is lost-time injury accidents per 100 employees per year.
(a) Severity is sick-leave days per accident.
(b) The incident estimate and 23 accidents concern the separate meat-processing investigation, not all 83 accidents.
(b) Interview estimates/reporting definitions limit precision and generalisation.
(c) Recording minor injuries and circumstances broadens risk information.
(c) Better recording can initially increase reports and does not itself prove prevention.
Examiner tip
Keep the two years, denominators and event definitions separate.
Question 5Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987), in the publicly available publisher abstract, report that unionised factory workers rated reasons for sabotage and the justifiability of broad categories of acts. Those accepting more reasons more readily justified the categories except dishonesty. The full article's detailed methods/results are not available here. (a) Identify the evidence type. (b) Evaluate saying the study proved dissatisfied workers committed every form of sabotage. (c) Explain why the exception and source-access limit matter for a complete key-study account.
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 (1987), in the publicly available publisher abstract, report that unionised factory workers rated reasons for sabotage and the justifiability of broad categories of acts. Those accepting more reasons more readily justified the categories except dishonesty. The full article's detailed methods/results are not available here. (a) Identify the evidence type. (b) Evaluate saying the study proved dissatisfied workers committed every form of sabotage. (c) Explain why the exception and source-access limit matter for a complete key-study account.
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
Giacalone and Rosenfeld: the abstract's important exception: 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 public evidence concerns reported justifications by unionised workers in one factory. It is not an observation of sabotage and does not reveal which individual committed an act.
Claim: dissatisfaction caused every form of sabotage. The abstract links acceptance of a wider range of reasons with willingness to justify categories; it does not randomly manipulate dissatisfaction, and explicitly excepts dishonesty. Judgement: retain the bounded attitude association and the exception, rejecting both causation and accusation. Generalising from one factory to every workplace would add another unsupported step.
The full article is needed to check sample composition, scoring, sampling and detailed statistical interpretation. Do not fill those gaps from a textbook memory or substitute a different Giacalone paper. This item provides authentic but partial key-study practice; the full-study source hold remains. Do not ask workers for confessions, gather allegations or describe operational sabotage techniques.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Identify self-reported justification/acceptability ratings, not observed acts.
(b) The abstract reports an association between acceptance of reasons and justification.
(b) It does not establish dissatisfaction as an experimentally manipulated cause or actual offending.
(b) Dishonesty is an explicit exception, opposing an all-forms conclusion.
(c) Withhold exact sample, questionnaire scoring and test statistics absent the full source.
(c) Require the complete method/results or authorised detailed account before claiming whole-study coverage.
Examiner tip
An exception in the reported result must survive into your conclusion.
