Exam guide

Paper structure

All four written papers are 1 hour 30 minutes long and worth 60 marks. AS Level is Papers 1 and 2. The full A Level adds Papers 3 and 4.

What changed over 2022–2026. The 2024 syllabus brought the biggest changes.

• Paper 1 core studies. Canli et al., Schachter and Singer, Laney et al., Pepperberg and Yamamoto et al. were last examined in 2023. From 2024 they were replaced by Hassett et al. (monkey toys), Hölzel et al. (mindfulness), Pozzulo et al. (line-ups), Fagen et al. (elephant learning) and Perry et al. (personal space). Since 2024 the paper is split into Section A (short questions) and Section B (questions 9 and 10).
• Paper 2. Section C was removed in 2024. The planning task is still the last question (10 + 4 marks).
• Paper 3. Up to 2023, each option had two questions: 2 + 4 + 6 marks, then 8 (describe) + 10 (evaluate). From 2024, each option has four questions:
  • a 4-mark applied scenario
  • a 2 + 2 issues-and-debates question
  • a 4 + 2 applied question
  • a 6-mark describe + 10-mark evaluate pair, which must cover a named issue and debates
• Paper 4. Up to 2023 there were three sections:
  • Section A: two 15-mark data and stimulus questions per option (answer both for your two options)
  • Section B: an 18-mark "design a study" (answer one)
  • Section C: a 12-mark "to what extent do you agree" essay (answer one)

From 2024 there are two sections:

- Section A: two questions per option, worth 10 and 8 marks, mostly on named key studies and measures
- Section B: one 24-mark question where you plan a study (10 marks), explain the psychology behind it (8 marks) and justify your choices (6 marks)

Topic weights

Share of all tagged marks across 36 papers (9 sessions × 4 papers). Each option's share assumes candidates are spread evenly across the four options. In your own exam, each option you choose is worth 30 marks on Paper 3 and 30 on Paper 4. That is one quarter of the A Level.

Inside the options (Papers 3 + 4 together, weighted marks over 9 sessions):

• Clinical: impulse control disorders and addiction (63.5) ≈ schizophrenia (61.5) ≈ anxiety and fear-related disorders (60) > OCD (47.5) > mood disorders (37.5)
• Consumer: physical environment (82) > the product (59) > decision-making (52) ≈ advertising (50) > psychological environment (27)
• Health: health promotion (67) > stress (59.5) > pain (49.5) ≈ adherence (48) ≈ patient–practitioner relationship (46)
• Organisational: work conditions (73) > satisfaction at work (58.5) > motivation (55.5) > leadership (49.5) > group behaviour (33.5)

Bankers

These came up in almost every session:

• Paper 1, the 10-mark evaluation essay. In every session you must give two strengths and two weaknesses of one core study, and at least one point must be about a named issue. The issues seen so far include validity, ecological validity, ethics, quantitative data, sampling and the independent measures design. Baron-Cohen et al. and Andrade have each been the essay study twice.
• Paper 1, the 12-mark question 9. You describe part of a study (4 marks), then give a similarity and a difference between two studies (8 marks). This has been asked in 7 of 9 sessions. Since 2024 it is always two named studies, or one named study plus "another study from the approach".
• Paper 1, application to everyday life. This came up in all 9 sessions. Often a scenario person asks for advice using a study, and the answer must be ethical.
• Paper 1, ethics questions. These came up in 7 sessions, often asking whether named guidelines were broken, or in the "two friends disagree" format.
• Most-examined core studies: Piliavin et al. (7 sessions), Baron-Cohen et al. (7), Andrade (6) and Milgram (6).
• Paper 2:
  • the planning question (every session, 14 marks)
  • human research ethics (every session)
  • self-reports, i.e. questionnaires, interviews, open and closed questions and rating scales (6 sessions, the most marks of any method)
  • operationalising variables (7 sessions)
  • graphs and tables (8 sessions)
• Paper 2, the 6-mark "describe X and Y, using any examples" question. Every session has one, for example open and closed questions, controls, natural experiments, order effects, interview types, or confidentiality and privacy.
• Options, examined every session:
  • Clinical: schizophrenia, anxiety and fear-related disorders, impulse control disorders
  • Health: adherence and health promotion
  • Organisational: satisfaction at work (job design, Herzberg, job satisfaction measures)
  • Consumer: the physical environment (8 of 9 sessions)
• Paper 4 key studies that keep returning:
  • Lovell et al. (OCD by telephone): 2024, 2025 and 2026
  • Landry et al. (rewards and self-determination): 3 sessions
  • Snyder and DeBono (advertising and personality): 2 sessions
  • North et al. (music in restaurants): 2 Paper 4 sessions, plus a Paper 3 essay
  • Shoshani and Steinmetz (positive psychology in schools): 2 sessions

Rarely tested

• Paper 1:
  • nature versus nurture as a named debate (once, 2023 Oct/Nov)
  • using children as participants (twice)
  • assumptions of the cognitive and learning approaches (twice each)
  • Fagen et al. as a direct study question (only 2024 and 2025 May/June)
  • Perry et al. (3 sessions, mostly small parts)
• Paper 2:
  • generalisability and objectivity/subjectivity (once each)
  • normal distribution (twice; it was badly answered in 2022)
  • measures of spread / standard deviation (twice)
  • sample size (twice)
  • experiments as a method in their own right (twice)
  • planning a longitudinal or self-report study (once each)
• Options:
  • group behaviour in organisations (lowest organisational weight)
  • the psychological environment in consumer psychology (menus, personal space, queuing)
  • mood disorders in Paper 4 (only 2022 and 2024 Oct/Nov)

Trends

• The new core studies are settling in. Since 2024, Hölzel et al. and Hassett et al. have each appeared in 3 of 5 sessions, Pozzulo et al. in 3, and Perry et al. in 3. Expect them as often as the older studies.
• Paper 1 now asks more about debates. The individual versus situational explanations debate came up in 4 of the 5 sessions since 2024 (Piliavin, Fagen, Dement and Kleitman, Pozzulo). It is usually a 4-mark question: define the debate, then give one example from each side.
• The Paper 2 planning question rotates through methods:
  • experiment: 2022 May/June, 2023 Oct/Nov, 2025 Oct/Nov
  • correlation: 2022 Oct/Nov, 2025 May/June
  • interview: 2023 May/June
  • observation: 2024 May/June and Oct/Nov
  • longitudinal: 2026 May/June

Case studies have become popular in the shorter questions, including triangulation (2024–2026).

• Paper 3 now starts with applied scenarios. Since 2024, every option opens with a short scenario about a named person, worth 4 marks ("suggest how…"). Every option also has a 2 + 2 issues-and-debates question, covering reductionism/holism, nomothetic/idiographic, determinism/free will, cultural differences and individual/situational explanations.
• Paper 4 is now built around key studies and measures. The rating scales and inventories that keep appearing include BDI, K-SAS, Y-BOCS, JDI, QWL and pain scales. Students must also be able to plan studies with stated features, such as a questionnaire technique, rating scale, sampling technique or type of data.
• Grade boundaries: Paper 3 boundaries have drifted down (A was 34 in 2022 and 29 in 2026). Paper 1 was unusually high in 2025 May/June (A = 45).

Question styles

• Paper 1 command words: identify, state and name (1–2 marks); outline (2 marks); describe (3–5 marks); explain and suggest (2–4 marks); evaluate (10 marks). Common formats:
  • "Two friends disagree about whether the study is valid / ethical / generalisable. Who is right?"
  • "Suggest advice for [named person] using [study]"
  • "Explain whether each ethical guideline was broken"
  • "One similarity and one difference between two studies" (8 marks)
• Paper 2:
  • definitions (1 mark)
  • "explain why… in this study", where marks depend on linking your answer to the scenario
  • sketching or labelling graphs, normal curves and tables
  • writing hypotheses (directional, non-directional, null)
  • operationalising behaviour categories
  • "describe X and Y, using any examples" (6 marks)
  • "describe how [researcher] could conduct a [method] study…" (10 marks), followed by a strength, weakness or improvement (4 marks)
• Paper 3:
  • since 2024: "suggest how…" for a person in a scenario (4 marks); "outline the debate" + "explain one reason why [topic] is reductionist / nomothetic / deterministic" (2 + 2 marks); "describe" (6 marks); "evaluate, including a discussion about [named issue] and debates" (10 marks)
  • up to 2023: define (2), describe (4), one strength and one weakness (6), describe (8), evaluate (10)
• Paper 4:
  • questions on the procedure, sample, measures, ethics and controls of key studies
  • "suggest one other way to measure…"
  • "explain two strengths / weaknesses of [technique]"
  • "plan a study using [method]…", "describe the psychological knowledge…" and "explain one reason for your choice of…"
  • up to 2023: "to what extent do you agree…?" essays (12 marks)

Common mistakes

Examiner reports were available for 2022 May/June, 2022 Oct/Nov and 2023 May/June. In summary:

• Not knowing every part of each core study. Questions can target any detail: the sample, one part of the procedure, a specific questionnaire, or a result with data. Students who learn only the outline lose easy marks.
• Confusing results with conclusions. A result is a fact from the data. A conclusion is the general claim that follows from it. Also check whether a result counts participants or trials.
• Not linking to the study or scenario. When a question says "in this study", or describes a scenario, a general textbook answer only gets partial credit.
• Evaluation essays that leave out or only describe the named issue. The four points must each be developed, ideally with examples from the study.
• Weak research-methods basics. Examples include rating scales without anchors, open questions that are not really open, mixing up types of interview and types of experiment, poor normal-curve axes, and unclear measurement of variables.
• Wrong method in the planning question. For example, a "natural experiment" that manipulates the IV or uses stooges, or an interview plan with no interview type, question types or example questions.
• Paper 3 and 4 answers that are anecdotal or common sense, or that describe the wrong study or theory. Learn each syllabus bullet with its named studies: aim, sample, method, procedure, two results and a conclusion.
• Answering from three or four options, or only one. You must answer from exactly two.
• Using evaluation terms such as "reductionist" without explaining them. Reductionism is not automatically a weakness. In Paper 4, a conclusion that only repeats your earlier points earns little.

Grade thresholds

Minimum raw marks for variant 2 of each component (out of 60), and overall thresholds for the A Level (components 12, 22, 32, 42, out of 240) and AS Level (components 12, 22, out of 120).

Grade A on the specialist papers typically needs only about 30–35 out of 60. Grade A on Papers 1 and 2 needs about 37–40.

Revision priorities for Oct/Nov 2026 and 2027

1. Learn all 12 current core studies in full detail: background, aim, sample, every part of the procedure, results with numbers, and conclusions. Hölzel, Hassett, Pozzulo, Perry and Fagen are now examined as often as Milgram, Piliavin, Bandura and Baron-Cohen.
2. Prepare for the Paper 1 essay for each of the 12 studies. Have two strengths and two weaknesses ready on validity, ecological validity, reliability, generalisability, ethics, sampling, quantitative and qualitative data, experimental design and the use of children or animals.
3. Practise "one similarity and one difference" for every pair of studies within an approach, and for common cross-approach pairs (for example Hölzel versus Dement and Kleitman, or Milgram versus Perry).
4. Have an ethical everyday application, and an example for each debate, ready for every study. The debates are individual/situational and nature/nurture.
5. Paper 2: practise planning one study of each method. Case study and self-report plans have not been set recently, and an experiment is always possible. For each, cover the IV/DV or variables, operationalisation, materials and question types, procedure, controls and data analysis.
6. Revise the Paper 2 basics: hypotheses, central tendency and spread (including standard deviation), graph and table choice, normal distribution, sampling techniques, order effects and counterbalancing, triangulation, and the human and animal ethics guidelines.
7. For your two options, make one flashcard per syllabus bullet. Include each named study, theory, measure or treatment, plus a strength, a weakness, and a link to an issue and a debate.
   • Clinical: OCD (Lovell, Y-BOCS, ERP), impulse control (K-SAS, feeling-state theory, imaginal desensitisation), schizophrenia and phobia treatments (applied tension, systematic desensitisation)
   • Health: adherence, health promotion, stress
   • Organisational: satisfaction (JDI, QWL, Herzberg), work conditions, motivation
   • Consumer: physical environment (music, odour, sound, layout), the product (sales techniques, the central gaze cascade)
8. Paper 4 planning: practise justifying every design choice (technique, rating scale, sample, type of data) and linking it to a named piece of psychological knowledge.