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.
5 questions in this topic
Exact English revisions checked in an AI-assisted academic review; independent teacher approval is still pending.
All topics
Original targeted practice for selected 2027 content; indicative answers, not complete syllabus coverage or teacher approval.
Subtopics in this topic (3)
Clinical learning accounts
Consumer choice
Health measurement and work motivation
5 of 5 questions shown
Loading saved responses
Question 1Fictional educational vignette, not a diagnosis: a person repeatedly checks a safely locked door; each check briefly reduces anxiety, and checking becomes more frequent. Explain an operant maintenance account and a competing cognitive account to investigate. Do not prescribe treatment.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Explain4 indicative marksNo calculator
Fictional educational vignette, not a diagnosis: a person repeatedly checks a safely locked door; each check briefly reduces anxiety, and checking becomes more frequent. Explain an operant maintenance account and a competing cognitive account to investigate. Do not prescribe treatment.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Checked negative reinforcement and distinct cognitive interpretation; fictional case, no diagnostic/treatment conclusion.
The behavioural account concerns why an action persists because of a consequence; the cognitive account concerns interpretations of risk/responsibility. They can interact rather than exclude each other. This fills an explanation example for the OCD section, not diagnostic criteria or Lovell's key-study evidence.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Anxiety relief removes an aversive state following checking.
If checking becomes more likely, relief functions as negative reinforcement rather than punishment.
An exaggerated belief about responsibility or threat could help sustain checking under a cognitive account.
This short vignette cannot establish OCD, its origin or an appropriate therapy; duration, impairment and competing explanations need qualified assessment.
Examiner tip
Do not infer a clinical diagnosis from one repeated behaviour.
Question 2Fictional shopper compares laptops. A scores8 for speed and2 for battery; B scores6 for speed and8 for battery. Under an equal-weight compensatory rule, which is selected? Contrast a non-compensatory rule requiring battery score at least5 and discuss one model limitation.4 indicative marks
Fictional shopper compares laptops. A scores8 for speed and2 for battery; B scores6 for speed and8 for battery. Under an equal-weight compensatory rule, which is selected? Contrast a non-compensatory rule requiring battery score at least5 and discuss one model limitation.
Cambridge 2027: Direct conceptual match
CheckedA10/B14 and battery cutoff; explicitly fictional attribute scores, no named-study data invented.
Add the given scores only because equal weights are stipulated; the sums are not actual research findings or validated psychometric utilities. The same choice B can emerge through different processes, so observing a purchase alone does not identify the shopper's decision strategy.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Equal-weight totals are A10 and B14, so the stipulated compensatory rule selects B.
Compensation allows high performance on one attribute to offset weakness on another.
The minimum-battery rule rejects A regardless of its speed, illustrating a non-compensatory cutoff.
Real buyers may use different weights, budgets or information; neither invented scoring rule is shown to describe all consumers.
Examiner tip
The selected item alone may not reveal the decision rule.
Question 3Fictional methods proposal compares a patient's self-report of adherence, pill counts and an electronic container-opening log. Explain one limitation of each and a triangulation strategy. This is educational research analysis, not medical advice.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Explain4 indicative marksNo calculator
Fictional methods proposal compares a patient's self-report of adherence, pill counts and an electronic container-opening log. Explain one limitation of each and a triangulation strategy. This is educational research analysis, not medical advice.
Cambridge 2027: Direct conceptual match
Checked report/count/opening proxy distinctions against listed subjective/objective adherence measures; no actual patient or treatment data.
Each measure operationalises a different observable event, while the intended construct is taking treatment as agreed. Matching periods avoids artificial disagreement and non-judgemental questions can identify barriers. The proposal does not instruct any participant to change medication or fabricate a clinical trial result.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Self-report may be affected by memory or socially desirable answers.
Missing pills do not prove ingestion; pills may be discarded or removed together.
Container opening does not prove the dose was swallowed or taken at the prescribed time.
Compare independently collected measures over the same period and investigate disagreement sensitively; no single indicator is perfect proof of adherence.
Examiner tip
An objective device record can still be an imperfect proxy for the target behaviour.
Question 4Fictional workplace introduces bonuses while removing staff choice over methods and publicly ranking employees. Apply self-determination theory to explain why a cash reward may coexist with reduced motivation; propose one theory-linked change and a way to check it.4 indicative marks
Analyse / Explain4 indicative marksNo calculator
Fictional workplace introduces bonuses while removing staff choice over methods and publicly ranking employees. Apply self-determination theory to explain why a cash reward may coexist with reduced motivation; propose one theory-linked change and a way to check it.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Checkedthree specified SDT needs and conditional role of reward context; no invented Landry findings.
Money can communicate appreciation or control depending on context. The specified loss of choice gives a concrete autonomy mechanism, but staff responses need evidence. Define outcomes before rollout and check quality alongside engagement rather than assuming either cash rewards or choice alone guarantee success.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Self-determination theory considers autonomy, competence and relatedness, not only the reward's cash amount.
Removing meaningful choice can undermine autonomy; public rankings may threaten competence or belonging for some workers.
Offer bounded method choice with supportive private feedback while keeping safety/performance requirements clear.
Compare voluntary engagement and confidential experience reports over time; the fictional case is not Landry's study1 or proof that all bonuses reduce motivation.
Examiner tip
A general theoretical application does not replace the required key-study design and findings.
Question 5Fictional adult consumer experiment randomly assigns80 volunteers to two equivalent offer descriptions, 'saveGBP5' or 'avoid aGBP5 surcharge'. All other displayed terms are identical. Purchases are25/40 and15/40 respectively; descriptive rates62.5% and37.5% are supplied. Explain what the comparison suggests, how random allocation helps, and why it does not establish that one frame always increases real-world purchases. No significance test is supplied.4 indicative marks
Analyse4 indicative marksNo calculator
Fictional adult consumer experiment randomly assigns80 volunteers to two equivalent offer descriptions, 'saveGBP5' or 'avoid aGBP5 surcharge'. All other displayed terms are identical. Purchases are25/40 and15/40 respectively; descriptive rates62.5% and37.5% are supplied. Explain what the comparison suggests, how random allocation helps, and why it does not establish that one frame always increases real-world purchases. No significance test is supplied.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Verified25/40 versus15/40 and identical-payoff premise. Partial consumer decision-making application under2.3.1 (which includes prospect theory), plus experimental inference; not a specified2.3.2 choice heuristic or evidence proving prospect theory as a whole.
The offered monetary consequence is stipulated equivalent, while wording differs. The save wording has the higher observed purchase rate, consistent with a framing interpretation in this fictional task.
Random assignment supports the comparison by avoiding deliberate allocation of, for example, eager shoppers to one condition, though chance imbalances remain possible.
The supplied rates are descriptive. Without additional evidence they do not establish statistical significance, and80 volunteers responding to this display do not justify 'always' across products, populations and real spending contexts.
Self-marking points
View marking points
Higher observed purchasing under the save frame suggests a possible framing effect in this task.
Random allocation reduces systematic participant differences between conditions in expectation.
Descriptive differences alone do not establish statistical reliability without further evidence.
Volunteer sample/artificial offer limit generalisation; no universal shopping effect follows.
Examiner tip
Do not invent significance, a named study or a universal effect from supplied percentages.
