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.
95 original questions across 15 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.
12 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 with indicative marking and worked reasoning. Partial conceptual support only; teacher approval pending. Not an official paper, complete study text or practical assessment.
Subtopics in this topic (12)
Dement and Kleitman: recall and repeated awakenings
Hassett: toy preference and competing explanations
Holzel: structural change and causal limits
Andrade: manipulation, memory and mechanism
Baron-Cohen: operationalising social understanding
Pozzulo: recognition and correct rejection
Bandura: matching, allocation and imitation
Fagen: learning criteria and changing denominators
Saavedra and Silverman: multiple outcomes in a case
Milgram: obedience, measurement and welfare
Perry: conditional effects and measured empathy
Piliavin: helping, trial units and field ethics
12 of 12 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1Dement and Kleitman studied nine adults. Their recall table records REM awakenings: 152 recall, 39 no recall; NREM awakenings: 11 recall, 149 no recall. (a) Explain the observational unit and the pattern. (b) Evaluate the claim that this proves dreaming never occurs outside REM. (c) Explain one measurement strength and one sampling limitation.4 indicative marks
Dement and Kleitman studied nine adults. Their recall table records REM awakenings: 152 recall, 39 no recall; NREM awakenings: 11 recall, 149 no recall. (a) Explain the observational unit and the pattern. (b) Evaluate the claim that this proves dreaming never occurs outside REM. (c) Explain one measurement strength and one sampling limitation.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Dement and Kleitman: recall and repeated awakenings: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Each record is an awakening; the same adult contributed repeatedly. Treating every record as a new participant would exaggerate the sample.
REM was associated with more frequent recall, but there were NREM recalls and REM non-recalls. Forgetting a dream is also possible, so absence of recall cannot establish absence of dreaming.
EEG and eye recordings support sleep-stage classification rather than retrospective guessing. They do not independently establish dream content. Nine adults, studied unequally intensively, cannot represent everyone's sleep.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish awakenings from independent participants.
Recognise higher recall in REM, with exceptions in both directions.
Separate reported recall from the occurrence of dreaming.
Link physiological recording to classification and the small adult sample to limited generalisation.
Examiner tip
A physiological correlate is not a perfect detector of subjective experience.
Question 2Hassett et al. analysed toy interactions from 11 male and 23 female rhesus monkeys after applying an interaction threshold. Males preferred wheeled toys within their group; females showed no significant plush preference. Two coders agreed scores together. (a) Explain why this does not show every female prefers plush toys. (b) Evaluate a hormonal explanation. (c) Explain what the coding procedure cannot establish about reliability.4 indicative marks
Hassett et al. analysed toy interactions from 11 male and 23 female rhesus monkeys after applying an interaction threshold. Males preferred wheeled toys within their group; females showed no significant plush preference. Two coders agreed scores together. (a) Explain why this does not show every female prefers plush toys. (b) Evaluate a hormonal explanation. (c) Explain what the coding procedure cannot establish about reliability.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Hassett: toy preference and competing explanations: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
The reported female comparison did not establish a plush preference. A within-male preference also does not automatically establish a male-female difference for wheeled toys.
Hormones offer a hypothesis, not a demonstrated cause in this design. Social history and other differences remain alternatives; selected interacting monkeys cannot establish human gender roles.
Consensus resolves disagreements during scoring, but cannot quantify agreement between independent judgements. A separate, independently coded sample would test that aspect without changing the published procedure.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish group comparisons from universal individual preferences.
Recognise that hormones were not experimentally manipulated here.
Explain threshold selection and limited species generalisation.
Distinguish consensus coding from independent agreement.
Examiner tip
Within-group preference and between-group difference answer different questions.
Question 3Holzel et al. recruited 18 mindfulness-course participants; two withdrew because of MRI discomfort. The 16 completers and 17 waiting-list controls had structural scans before and after eight weeks. Left hippocampal grey-matter concentration increased in the course group. (a) Explain how the comparison improves on a single post-course scan. (b) Evaluate the claim that meditation alone caused new neurons to grow. (c) Discuss attrition and one residual confound.4 indicative marks
Holzel et al. recruited 18 mindfulness-course participants; two withdrew because of MRI discomfort. The 16 completers and 17 waiting-list controls had structural scans before and after eight weeks. Left hippocampal grey-matter concentration increased in the course group. (a) Explain how the comparison improves on a single post-course scan. (b) Evaluate the claim that meditation alone caused new neurons to grow. (c) Discuss attrition and one residual confound.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Holzel: structural change and causal limits: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Repeated scans estimate change rather than merely comparing final levels. Waiting-list scans help assess changes associated with time and repeated measurement.
The course included several activities and group contact; enrolment was not random allocation. Structural concentration is not a direct count of newly formed neurons or evidence of improved intelligence.
Discomfort-related withdrawal reduced the course sample to 16. If tolerance relates to relevant characteristics, completers may differ from recruits. That possibility is a limitation, not a demonstrated direction of bias.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Explain baseline change and the waiting-list comparison.
Distinguish structural MRI measures from direct neuron counts.
Recognise non-random enrolment and multiple course components.
Explain potential selective attrition without assuming it occurred.
Examiner tip
A brain-image difference does not identify its cellular mechanism.
Question 4Andrade randomly assigned 40 adults to shade printed shapes or listen without shading during a monotonous message. Later surprise recall averaged 7.5 items with shading and 5.8 without. (a) Identify the manipulation and memory outcome. (b) Explain what random allocation contributes. (c) Evaluate the claims that free drawing always improves learning and that reduced daydreaming was demonstrated.4 indicative marks
Andrade randomly assigned 40 adults to shade printed shapes or listen without shading during a monotonous message. Later surprise recall averaged 7.5 items with shading and 5.8 without. (a) Identify the manipulation and memory outcome. (b) Explain what random allocation contributes. (c) Evaluate the claims that free drawing always improves learning and that reduced daydreaming was demonstrated.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Andrade: manipulation, memory and mechanism: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
The intervention was shading supplied shapes, not unrestricted drawing. Recall was a later outcome, separate from writing names while listening.
Random allocation makes systematic pre-existing group differences less likely; it does not guarantee identical groups or random population sampling.
The higher mean supports a benefit under these conditions, not every learning context. Daydreaming was not directly measured, so its reduction remains an explanation to investigate rather than a proven mediator.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Identify shading condition and later recall, not artistic ability.
Explain probabilistic balancing of participant differences.
Restrict generalisation to the tested task and sample.
Distinguish the measured effect from an unmeasured mechanism.
Examiner tip
Evidence for an effect is not automatically evidence for its proposed mechanism.
Question 5The revised adult Eyes Test in Baron-Cohen et al. used 36 retained items, each with four word choices. The clinical group contained 15 men; comparison groups were recruited separately. (a) Explain the operational measure. (b) Evaluate interpreting a lower group score as absence of all empathy. (c) Explain why clinical-group membership was not a randomly allocated treatment and propose one relevant measurement check.4 indicative marks
The revised adult Eyes Test in Baron-Cohen et al. used 36 retained items, each with four word choices. The clinical group contained 15 men; comparison groups were recruited separately. (a) Explain the operational measure. (b) Evaluate interpreting a lower group score as absence of all empathy. (c) Explain why clinical-group membership was not a randomly allocated treatment and propose one relevant measurement check.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Baron-Cohen: operationalising social understanding: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
The score reflects correct choices on the retained eye-expression items. Multiple choices permit guessing and require understanding the response words.
A lower mean is not a diagnosis for an individual or proof of absent empathy. The all-male clinical sample also limits generalisation.
Participants entered groups through existing characteristics, not randomly assigned diagnoses. Checking word comprehension would examine an alternative explanation for score differences; it would not by itself validate every aspect of empathy.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Identify accuracy of word choices about eye-region expressions.
Distinguish the operational task from the full empathy construct.
Explain pre-existing groups and restricted clinical sample.
Propose a vocabulary or comparable-language check without inventing findings.
Examiner tip
An operational definition measures an aspect of a construct, not its entirety.
Question 6Pozzulo et al. studied children and adults with cartoon and human line-ups. For cartoon targets, child correct identification was .99 when present and correct rejection .74 when absent; adult values were .95 and .94. (a) Explain why identification and rejection differ. (b) Evaluate saying children always outperformed adults. (c) Explain why a child-adult difference cannot be attributed solely to social pressure.4 indicative marks
Pozzulo et al. studied children and adults with cartoon and human line-ups. For cartoon targets, child correct identification was .99 when present and correct rejection .74 when absent; adult values were .95 and .94. (a) Explain why identification and rejection differ. (b) Evaluate saying children always outperformed adults. (c) Explain why a child-adult difference cannot be attributed solely to social pressure.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Pozzulo: recognition and correct rejection: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
A correct present-target response identifies the target; a correct absent-target response rejects the line-up. High recognition therefore need not mean low false identification when no target is there.
Children were slightly higher on cartoon identification, but lower on cartoon rejection. The unqualified superiority claim selects only one outcome.
Age was not randomly assigned; children pointed whereas adults responded in writing, and testing settings differed. These alternatives prevent a unique social-pressure explanation or automatic transfer to real crimes.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish selecting a present target from rejecting an absent target.
Use both conditions rather than only the identification result.
Identify pre-existing age groups and procedural differences.
Limit generalisation from these line-ups to real eyewitness settings.
Examiner tip
Recognition success does not remove the risk of false identification.
Question 7Bandura, Ross and Ross used 72 children. Baseline aggression informed matched sets before allocation to conditions with an aggressive model, a non-aggressive model or no model. Later behaviour was observed without the model present. (a) Explain matching versus random allocation. (b) Explain how imitative behaviour supports learning. (c) Evaluate extrapolation to inevitable adult violence and discuss an ethical concern.4 indicative marks
Bandura, Ross and Ross used 72 children. Baseline aggression informed matched sets before allocation to conditions with an aggressive model, a non-aggressive model or no model. Later behaviour was observed without the model present. (a) Explain matching versus random allocation. (b) Explain how imitative behaviour supports learning. (c) Evaluate extrapolation to inevitable adult violence and discuss an ethical concern.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Bandura: matching, allocation and imitation: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Matching aimed to balance an existing tendency; subsequent random allocation reduced systematic condition differences beyond the matching measure. Neither makes the sample representative of all children.
More model-like aggression following aggressive exposure, with the model absent, supports acquired responding rather than immediate co-performance. It does not establish permanent personality change.
The setting and short observation period do not demonstrate inevitable later interpersonal violence. Exposure itself can pose a welfare concern; this is historical evaluation, not a proposal to repeat aggressive modelling with children.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Separate measured baseline matching from allocation within matched sets.
Link model-specific imitation after exposure to observational learning.
Limit inference from short-term toy-directed behaviour.
Identify potential distress or teaching aggression, not merely consent paperwork.
Examiner tip
Short-term imitation and lifelong violent behaviour are different outcomes.
Question 8Fagen et al. trained five female elephants using a whistle and food rewards. Four juveniles learned the complete trunk-washing sequence after 25, 30, 35 and 35 sessions. The adult did not complete component training and was never tested on the full sequence. (a) Explain the rewards' roles. (b) Evaluate coding the adult as a failed full-sequence test. (c) Explain why averages over changing sets of animals cannot establish identical learning gains.4 indicative marks
Fagen et al. trained five female elephants using a whistle and food rewards. Four juveniles learned the complete trunk-washing sequence after 25, 30, 35 and 35 sessions. The adult did not complete component training and was never tested on the full sequence. (a) Explain the rewards' roles. (b) Evaluate coding the adult as a failed full-sequence test. (c) Explain why averages over changing sets of animals cannot establish identical learning gains.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Fagen: learning criteria and changing denominators: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
The whistle signalled reward after learning its association with food. Rewarding successive components and their sequence supported the trained behaviour.
The adult's incomplete component learning is a finding, but a full-sequence test result was never obtained. Record it as untested, not as an invented test failure.
Earlier completers stopped contributing to later sessions, changing the denominator. Compare identified animals over comparable stages before inferring individual improvement. One adult and selected juveniles cannot isolate age as the cause of different progress.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish conditioned whistle reinforcement from food reinforcement.
Separate untested performance from an observed failed test.
Recognise removal of successful animals from later training averages.
Limit age causation and generalisation from selected animals.
Examiner tip
Missing test evidence is not a measured zero.
Question 9Saavedra and Silverman reported a nine-year-old boy's button phobia. Approach behaviour improved during behavioural work while disgust initially remained problematic; subsequent imagery work accompanied lower distress. (a) Explain why approach and disgust are separate outcomes. (b) Evaluate attributing all improvement uniquely to imagery. (c) Explain one strength of the case study and two limits on generalisation or causal interpretation.4 indicative marks
Saavedra and Silverman reported a nine-year-old boy's button phobia. Approach behaviour improved during behavioural work while disgust initially remained problematic; subsequent imagery work accompanied lower distress. (a) Explain why approach and disgust are separate outcomes. (b) Evaluate attributing all improvement uniquely to imagery. (c) Explain one strength of the case study and two limits on generalisation or causal interpretation.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Saavedra and Silverman: multiple outcomes in a case: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
A child may approach a button while still feeling disgust. Measuring only approach would miss this difference between behaviour and subjective experience.
Imagery followed earlier work rather than being independently randomised. Earlier exposure, expectancy and their combination remain alternatives to a unique imagery effect.
Repeated, detailed assessment traces how the child's outcomes changed. One clinical case cannot establish a typical response or isolate each component's effect. This analysis is not treatment advice or a classroom exposure activity.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Distinguish observable approach from reported internal experience.
Recognise sequential components and competing time-related explanations.
Explain detailed within-case monitoring as a strength.
Limit population generalisation and single-component causal claims.
Examiner tip
Improvement after a component is not proof that component alone caused it.
Question 10In Milgram's 1963 report, 26 of 40 men continued to the maximum indicated 450 volts; 14 stopped earlier. The learner received no shocks, but some participants showed marked distress. (a) State how obedience was operationalised. (b) Evaluate the claims that everyone obeyed and nobody could have been harmed. (c) Explain one limit on generalising to other populations or historical events.4 indicative marks
In Milgram's 1963 report, 26 of 40 men continued to the maximum indicated 450 volts; 14 stopped earlier. The learner received no shocks, but some participants showed marked distress. (a) State how obedience was operationalised. (b) Evaluate the claims that everyone obeyed and nobody could have been harmed. (c) Explain one limit on generalising to other populations or historical events.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Milgram: obedience, measurement and welfare: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Maximum indicated voltage indexed compliance with the experimenter's instructions; it was not a direct measure of cruelty or enjoyment.
The 14 refusals disprove universal obedience. The learner's protection from shocks does not negate participants' fear or the pressure on their ability to withdraw.
A volunteer male sample in a particular authority setting cannot supply a population-wide obedience constant or reproduce the complexity of historical atrocities. Debriefing does not retrospectively remove distress.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Identify maximum indicated shock administered before refusal.
Distinguish majority obedience from universal obedience.
Distinguish simulated learner shocks from real participant distress.
Limit extrapolation from a selected male laboratory sample.
Examiner tip
A simulated consequence for the learner can still cause real participant harm.
Question 11Perry et al. used oxytocin and placebo sessions and measured empathy. For selected high- and low-empathy groups, interpersonal-distance patterns differed; the experiment did not show a uniform overall distance-reducing effect. (a) Explain why a crossover comparison is useful. (b) Evaluate the headline 'oxytocin makes everybody seek closeness'. (c) Explain why empathy group membership cannot be treated as an experimentally assigned cause.4 indicative marks
Perry et al. used oxytocin and placebo sessions and measured empathy. For selected high- and low-empathy groups, interpersonal-distance patterns differed; the experiment did not show a uniform overall distance-reducing effect. (a) Explain why a crossover comparison is useful. (b) Evaluate the headline 'oxytocin makes everybody seek closeness'. (c) Explain why empathy group membership cannot be treated as an experimentally assigned cause.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Perry: conditional effects and measured empathy: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Each participant's treatment and placebo responses can be compared, reducing variation from stable personal characteristics. Order and carryover remain design considerations.
Opposite group directions and context-dependent findings do not justify a universal closeness claim. Computerised distance choices are also not identical to everyday social contact.
Empathy scores defined groups rather than random assignment to empathy levels. Related characteristics can therefore explain group differences. The selected male sample further limits generalisation; this is interpretation, not advice to administer a substance.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Explain within-person control of stable participant differences.
Recognise that effects depend on group and task context.
Distinguish measured empathy from manipulated treatment.
Limit inference from selected male participants and task proxies.
Examiner tip
A conditional treatment pattern can be hidden by a misleading overall headline.
Question 12Piliavin et al. reported spontaneous help before model intervention on 62 of 65 cane trials and 19 of 38 apparently drunk trials. (a) Explain the comparison and its unit of analysis. (b) Evaluate treating every passenger as an independent trial. (c) Explain one ecological strength, one control limitation and one ethical problem of the subway procedure.4 indicative marks
Piliavin et al. reported spontaneous help before model intervention on 62 of 65 cane trials and 19 of 38 apparently drunk trials. (a) Explain the comparison and its unit of analysis. (b) Evaluate treating every passenger as an independent trial. (c) Explain one ecological strength, one control limitation and one ethical problem of the subway procedure.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Piliavin: helping, trial units and field ethics: explicitly evidenced in this prompt and worked guidance. Partial section/study-heading support only, not all underlying leaf requirements, a complete study account, specialist-option completion, hands-on performance or teacher approval.
Help occurred on a much larger share of cane trials; the outcome here is whether a trial received spontaneous help. It is not each passenger's individual helping rate.
Passengers experienced the same event and could influence one another. Counting them as independent replications would exaggerate the evidence.
An ordinary subway offers realistic social context, but uneven condition execution and victim/team differences limit control. Riders had not consented and could not immediately leave a moving train; realism does not remove those ethical concerns. Do not stage a replication.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Compare proportions of trials with help, not raw passenger totals.
Recognise shared events and interactions among passengers.
Balance a natural setting against unequal condition execution.
Identify lack of prior consent and restricted practical withdrawal.
Examiner tip
A large number of bystanders is not the same as a large number of independent trials.
