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.
192 original questions across 31 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.
3 questions in this topic
This is a limited practice preview and is not submitted for search indexing.
All topics
Original written applications of inspected primary conceptual sources. Partial support only; not official assessment, complete key-study coverage or practical work. Teacher review pending.
Subtopics in this topic (3)
Liking and reciprocation: two routes to the same sale
Consistency and scarcity: commitment is not a contract
Social proof and authority: popular does not mean expert
3 of 3 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1In a fictional repair shop, one customer likes the assistant because they share a hobby; another dislikes the assistant but feels obliged after receiving free, useful advice. Both buy a notebook. (a) Explain the different influence mechanisms. (b) Evaluate the owner's claim that both sales prove liking caused purchase. (c) Analyse a paper-only comparison separating the two cues, and explain why combining them does not guarantee twice the effect. Do not approach customers or offer real inducements.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp40-44: liking and Reciprocation; p42 non-additivity warning. Cited experiments were not independently read; no full empirical-method claim.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
In a fictional repair shop, one customer likes the assistant because they share a hobby; another dislikes the assistant but feels obliged after receiving free, useful advice. Both buy a notebook. (a) Explain the different influence mechanisms. (b) Evaluate the owner's claim that both sales prove liking caused purchase. (c) Analyse a paper-only comparison separating the two cues, and explain why combining them does not guarantee twice the effect. Do not approach customers or offer real inducements.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp40-44: liking and Reciprocation; p42 non-additivity warning. Cited experiments were not independently read; no full empirical-method claim.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Liking and reciprocation: two routes to the same sale: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.
The first case fits liking: a shared interest can make the assistant more agreeable. The second fits reciprocation: receiving a useful benefit can create an urge to give something back even without affection. The author discussion distinguishes those routes; treating all positive social exchanges as liking erases the second customer's stated dislike.
Claim: two sales establish liking as the cause. Both purchases are fictional outcomes, and the vignettes supply different reasons. Neither rules out needing the notebook, its price or its quality. Judgement: these are plausible theory applications, not causal evidence from a controlled comparison or evidence that an indebted customer has consented to pressure.
Write four matched descriptions crossing a truthful shared-interest cue with useful advice or no advice. Keep notebook price, specifications and the opportunity to decline identical. Compare the advice contrast within each interest condition and the interest contrast within each advice condition using explicitly synthetic choices. Interaction is possible, so two helpful cues need not sum or double conversion. No gifts, interviews, recruitment or sales activity are conducted.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Shared interests can support liking and willingness to agree.
(a) The unsolicited benefit can create felt obligation through reciprocation despite dislike.
(b) The same purchase outcome cannot identify one psychological mechanism.
(b) Need or product suitability is an alternative explanation for either fictional purchase.
(c) Cross a genuine-common-interest cue with advice-present/absent in four fictional versions, holding the offer constant.
(c) Compare like-for-like contrasts; reject guaranteed additive effects and preserve refusal without obligation.
Examiner tip
A felt obligation and a favourable impression are not the same explanation.
Question 2A fictional buyer previously said they prefer repairable products. A seller points to that statement and says only two repairable lamps remain. The stock count is verified, but the buyer's budget has changed. (a) Explain consistency and scarcity separately. (b) Evaluate 'you must buy now to remain consistent'. (c) Interpret a synthetic audit in which urgency ratings rise but purchases do not, and specify a paper-only comparison that separates the two cues.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp45-47: Consistency and Scarcity, including reactance. Original studies cited there not independently read; no replicated protocol.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
A fictional buyer previously said they prefer repairable products. A seller points to that statement and says only two repairable lamps remain. The stock count is verified, but the buyer's budget has changed. (a) Explain consistency and scarcity separately. (b) Evaluate 'you must buy now to remain consistent'. (c) Interpret a synthetic audit in which urgency ratings rise but purchases do not, and specify a paper-only comparison that separates the two cues.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp45-47: Consistency and Scarcity, including reactance. Original studies cited there not independently read; no replicated protocol.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Consistency and scarcity: commitment is not a contract: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.
Consistency can make a buyer wish to act in line with an earlier preference for repairability. Scarcity makes the limited opportunity salient. Neither mechanism shows that the lamp is more durable, affordable or appropriate: stock is availability information, not a product-quality test.
Claim: consistency requires immediate purchase. The buyer's earlier statement concerned a preference, not buying this particular lamp regardless of cost. The new budget constraint changes the decision. Judgement: refusing can be consistent with a broader aim of responsible purchasing; an influence principle describes a tendency, not an obligation or deterministic rule. Even a truthful stock claim must not become manufactured pressure.
The invented audit separates urgency from behaviour: higher urgency with unchanged purchases supports neither extra revenue nor a universal scarcity effect. In four written versions cross presence/absence of the earlier-preference reminder and visibility of the verified stock count. Keep actual availability, lamp features, price and the changed-budget description fixed. Use separate synthetic urgency and choice columns. This isolates message contrasts on paper, not effects in real buyers; no countdown, scarcity deception or real transaction is used.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Consistency links a present decision to an earlier stated position.
(a) Scarcity concerns restricted availability rather than better lamp performance.
(b) A general preference is not an irrevocable purchase obligation.
(b) Changed budget and product suitability can reasonably outweigh either cue.
(c) Increased synthetic urgency without purchasing does not establish increased sales.
(c) Cross the preference reminder and verified stock cue, keeping actual stock, price and budget scenario fixed.
Examiner tip
A scarce opportunity can still be the wrong purchase.
Question 3A fictional bicycle-light listing says it is the most frequently chosen model among local commuters and displays a recommendation by a famous actor. A second listing gives a relevant engineer's documented assessment but has few reviews. (a) Distinguish social proof from authority. (b) Evaluate which claims could inform a purchase and what verification is missing. (c) Explain why the two listings cannot reveal the separate effects of popularity and expertise, then specify a written comparison without publishing endorsements or collecting buyers' data.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp47-50: Social Validation, Authority and Some Final Considerations. Public conceptual discussion only; original cited experiments not independently read.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.6 indicative marks
A fictional bicycle-light listing says it is the most frequently chosen model among local commuters and displays a recommendation by a famous actor. A second listing gives a relevant engineer's documented assessment but has few reviews. (a) Distinguish social proof from authority. (b) Evaluate which claims could inform a purchase and what verification is missing. (c) Explain why the two listings cannot reveal the separate effects of popularity and expertise, then specify a written comparison without publishing endorsements or collecting buyers' data.
Primary reading: https://www.influenceatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cornell-HotelRestAdminQrtly.pdf
Reading scope: Cialdini and Goldstein (2002), author-hosted published conceptual synthesis, printed pp47-50: Social Validation, Authority and Some Final Considerations. Public conceptual discussion only; original cited experiments not independently read.
Syllabus boundary: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/721433-2027-syllabus.pdf#page=36; 9990-option-2.4.2, selected nested content only. Written fictional case; no human trials.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Social proof and authority: popular does not mean expert: selected nested conceptual content only, not the whole section or complete empirical-study coverage. Original written case analysis is not hands-on performance, a validated assessment or teacher approval.
The commuter claim is social proof, called social validation in the source: others' choices provide a guide when the buyer is uncertain. Authority concerns whose judgement is credible in this domain. Celebrity recognition is not evidence of engineering competence, while a qualified engineer's assessment still needs to address the buyer's actual use.
Claim: the popular actor-endorsed light must be best. Verify whether 'most chosen' refers to a representative group or a selectively counted subset, and whether choices are authentic. For the engineer check relevant expertise, assessment basis and financial incentives. Judgement: both cues can help filter information but neither replaces performance evidence or fit; apparent independence must not be inferred merely from a title.
The listings differ on two cues, so different fictional choices would not identify which cue mattered. Prepare four written listings crossing high/low documented popularity with relevant-expert/no-expert assessment while holding features and price fixed. Keep every endorsement invented and explicitly labelled, with separate credibility and intended-choice outcomes. Do not fabricate reviews for publication, seek real endorsements or collect personal data. This applies the authors' concepts, not independently verified results of every experiment they cite.
Self-marking points
View marking points
(a) Social proof uses others' choices as a cue, especially under uncertainty.
(a) Authority depends on relevant perceived expertise/credibility, not fame alone.
(b) Check the commuter claim's population, denominator and authenticity.
(b) Assess the engineer's relevant competence, evidence and conflicts of interest; neither popularity nor credentials guarantees suitability.
(c) The two listings change popularity and recommender together, confounding attribution.
(c) Cross independently documented popularity and relevant expertise in four fictional listings with identical price/features.
Examiner tip
Ask both 'how many chose it?' and 'who is qualified to judge it?'.
