Cambridge AS & A Level Psychology 9990/32 is the May/June 2026 Paper 3 (Specialist Options: Approaches, Issues and Debates), variant 2. It lasts 1 hour 30 minutes, is worth 60 marks and is an A Level paper. You answer all four questions from each of two options, eight questions in total, and each option is worth 30 marks. Every option ends with the biggest question on the paper: 16 marks, split into a 6-mark describe and a 10-mark evaluate with a named issue. This guide goes through all 16 questions and shows what the official mark scheme gave marks for. The paper and its mark scheme are free on the Tutopiya Learning Portal.

For an overview of all four 9990 papers from this series, see A Level Psychology 9990 May/June 2026 past papers: what came up and how it was marked.

9990/32 at a glance

The rubric is: answer questions from two options, and answer all the questions in each option you have studied. You write in an answer booklet.

Question	Option	Topic	Marks
1	A: Clinical	Beck’s cognitive theory of depression applied to Tara	4
2	A: Clinical	Applied tension for blood-injection-injury phobia; reductionism	4
3	A: Clinical	REBT for Samuel; a weakness of REBT	6
4	A: Clinical	ICD-11 criteria for kleptomania and pyromania, and the K-SAS: describe (6), evaluate with questionnaires (10)	16
5	B: Consumer	Product placement of a mobile phone in a film	4
6	B: Consumer	A slogan guideline and why it may not apply	4
7	B: Consumer	Responses to queue intrusions; a problem in studying queues	6
8	B: Consumer	Point of purchase and heuristics studies: describe (6), evaluate with experiments (10)	16
9	C: Health	Why Ken delays seeking treatment for headaches	4
10	C: Health	Savage and Armstrong (1990): practitioner style; determinism	4
11	C: Health	Biofeedback for Fatima’s stress; a weakness	6
12	C: Health	Yokley and Glenwick (1984): describe (6), evaluate with use of children in research (10)	16
13	D: Organisational	Walton’s QWL and night shift workers	4
14	D: Organisational	Muczyk and Reimann’s leader styles; nomothetic	4
15	D: Organisational	Kelley’s followership for a baker and a packer; a strength	6
16	D: Organisational	Physical work conditions and the Hawthorne effect, and open plan offices: describe (6), evaluate with longitudinal studies (10)	16
		Total answered (two options × 30)	60

Every option has the same shape: two 4-mark questions, a 6-mark question, then a 6-mark describe and a 10-mark evaluate.

Question-by-question walkthrough

How the long questions are marked

The 6-mark describe questions (4(a), 8(a), 16(a)) use the AO1 knowledge and understanding grid. Each of the two topics gets its own level from 1 to 3, and the marks are added: Level 3 and Level 3 makes 6, Level 1 and Level 3 makes 4. If you cover only one topic, you cannot score more than 3. Level 3 needs an accurate, detailed description with accurate terminology; Level 2 is sometimes accurate but lacks detail; Level 1 is largely inaccurate or thin. Question 12(a), on a single study, was marked differently (see below).

The 10-mark evaluate questions (4(b), 8(b), 12(b), 16(b)) use the AO3 analysis and evaluation grid. Each evaluation point is levelled, then the examiner awards a best fit:

• Level 5 (9–10): very detailed evaluation, two or more clear analysis points, very thorough and effective use of context.
• Level 4 (7–8): detailed evaluation, analysis evident, mainly in context.
• Level 3 (5–6): relevant evaluation, limited analysis, some context.
• Level 2 (3–4): superficial but relevant, little analysis or context.
• Level 1 (1–2): a basic strength or weakness with no analysis or context.

Without the named issue the essay is capped at 4. Best fit works against padding: six Level 2 points still score 4, one Level 4 point with two Level 3 points scores 7, and two points at different levels usually earn the lower level.

The short questions are point-marked, usually 1 mark for a brief point and 1 for detail or application. Several carry a context cap, noted below.

Section A: Clinical Psychology (Questions 1 to 4)

• 1 Beck’s theory applied to Tara (4 marks): one mark per point, such as a processing bias (focusing on negatives and ignoring positives), negative automatic thoughts, negative self-schemas and overgeneralising or catastrophising, each linked to Tara. The scheme’s model used the cognitive triad: Tara feels worthless (self), thinks she will lose her job because she is no good at it (world), and believes she will never get another (future). No clear reference to Tara’s life capped the answer at 3.
• 2(a) Applied tension (2 marks): the patient learns to tense their muscles, which raises blood pressure and stops them fainting at the sight of blood; they practise spotting the early signs of fainting and apply the tension then. “Relaxation” alone scored nothing.
• 2(b) Why applied tension is reductionist (2 marks): 1 mark for reductionism (explaining or treating a complex behaviour by breaking it into simpler parts) and 1 for context: the treatment targets one physical process (blood pressure and the fainting response) and ignores thoughts or past experiences of blood and injections. Defining reductionism only as “ignoring other explanations”, or saying applied tension cannot treat other phobias, scored nothing.
• 3(a) REBT for Samuel (4 marks): one mark per point using the ABCDE model: the activating events (his team losing, friends not saying hello), his beliefs (he caused the losses, his friends dislike him), the consequences (stopping sport, low mood), disputing those beliefs (perhaps his friends did not see him), and the effect (more rational beliefs, returning to sport). Full marks needed disputing, and a generic ABCDE outline not applied to Samuel was capped at 2.
• 3(b) A weakness of REBT (2 marks): for example, it ignores biological causes such as low serotonin, its confrontational style may make patients uncomfortable, it needs motivation and active participation, or a patient with low mood may drop out if progress is slow. Time and cost were credited only if explained; “patients will lie” scored nothing, although social desirability (saying they feel better to please the therapist) was creditworthy.
• 4(a) Describe ICD-11 criteria for kleptomania and pyromania, and the K-SAS (6 marks): for the criteria, the key points are a recurrent failure to control strong urges to steal or set fires, no apparent motive (items not needed for use or money; fires not for revenge, gain or a political statement), rising tension beforehand, pleasure or relief during and after, and the behaviour not being better explained by another disorder or intoxication. Level 3 needed the lack of motive and the relief or gratification; covering only kleptomania or only pyromania was capped at Level 2. For the K-SAS, Level 3 needed the 11 or 12 items and the rating scale (0–4 or 1–5). “Rating scale” or “Likert scale” alone was not credited. Higher scores mean more severe symptoms, from 0–7 (no symptoms or in remission) to 31–44 (severe) on the 11-item version.
• 4(b) Evaluate, including questionnaires (10 marks): the named issue fits the K-SAS. Strengths: quantitative scores can be compared with population averages or before and after treatment, giving numbers may be less embarrassing than describing the behaviour, and the scale has good concurrent validity with the Global Assessment of Functioning. Weaknesses: no detail on why the urges occur, and it may be easier to lie when no explanation is needed. Other issues: nomothetic criteria versus each patient’s unique experience, case studies, quantitative versus qualitative data (including clinical interviews), objective versus subjective data, validity, reliability and application.

Section B: Consumer Psychology (Questions 5 to 8)

• 5 Product placement of a phone (4 marks): one mark per point. The mere exposure effect means viewers see the phone or blue square logo repeatedly without consciously remembering it, which makes the brand familiar and viewed more positively; it can also act as a reminder for people who already know the brand, so they notice the logo when shopping and are more likely to buy it, possibly without knowing why. No reference to the phone or the logo capped the answer at 2.
• 6(a) A slogan guideline (2 marks): 1 for the guideline and 1 for detail. Credited guidelines included keeping your eye on the horizon (a slogan that lasts as products change), positioning the brand by its main strength, linking the slogan to the brand, repeating it across all advertising, using a jingle, using it from the start, being creative (moderately complex slogans are processed more deeply), avoiding long words, sticking to one idea, and being catchy. An example slogan alone, or “aligns with the goals of the business”, scored nothing.
• 6(b) Why that guideline may not apply (2 marks): it had to be the guideline from 6(a). Credited reasons: other factors such as price and competition drive purchases, “creative” or “moderately complex” are hard to define, consumers differ (not everyone likes a jingle), and it is hard to future-proof a slogan.
• 7(a) Two responses to queue intrusions, using a study (4 marks): for each, 1 mark for the response and 1 for a result from a study. From Milgram’s queue research: verbal objections such as telling the intruder to go to the back (about 22% of queues), non-verbal responses such as glaring (about 15%), and physical actions such as a tap on the shoulder (about 10%), often from the person just behind. Objections were more frequent with no buffers than with one or two. Numerical results were allowed within 2 percentage points.
• 7(b) A problem in studying queues (2 marks): ethics (watching people for a long time without consent, or confederates causing anger), covert observation being hard, observers disagreeing about what counts as hostile, and recording accurately in a busy place.
• 8(a) Describe a point of purchase study and a heuristics study (6 marks): any suitable studies were credited, but Hall et al. was not. For point of purchase, Wansink et al. (1998) fits: you need only describe one of its experiments, for example multiple-unit pricing (“6 for $3”) raising sales by 32% across 86 shops, or purchase limits on discounted soup (no limit 3.3 cans, a limit of 4 gave 3.5, a limit of 12 gave 7). For heuristics, del Campo et al. (2016): 320 participants in Vienna and Madrid chose between five egg cartons designed to trigger different heuristics, with or without 40 seconds of time pressure, and completed a decision-style questionnaire; Madrid participants chose the take-the-best option more often. Level 3 on either study needed at least one result.
• 8(b) Evaluate, including experiments (10 marks): lab experiments give good control and reliability but low ecological validity and demand characteristics; field experiments give ecological validity and no demand characteristics if participants are unaware, but less control and possible ethical problems. Other issues: objective and subjective data, application to everyday life (how shops can use the findings), quantitative and qualitative data, individual and situational explanations, reliability, validity and ethics.

Section C: Health Psychology (Questions 9 to 12)

• 9 Why Ken delays (4 marks): for each reason, 1 for the reason and 1 for detail about his headaches. Reasons included appraisal, illness and utilisation delay, the health belief model (low perceived seriousness or susceptibility, barriers such as time and cost, doubts about benefits, no cue to action), low self-efficacy and a cost-benefit analysis. For example, appraisal delay: he thinks it is only a headache. No reference to headaches in either reason capped the answer at 3; one reason in context was enough.
• 10(a) Practitioner style and satisfaction in Savage and Armstrong (2 marks): a patient-centred (sharing) style led to lower satisfaction, and a doctor-centred (directing) style to higher satisfaction. One mark for the style, one for its effect.
• 10(b) Why this is deterministic (2 marks): determinism means behaviour is caused by factors outside our control; here the patient does not choose the doctor’s style, yet the style causes their satisfaction. The scheme also credited learned expectations that a doctor should be the authority.
• 11(a) Biofeedback for Fatima (4 marks): a physiological measure such as heart rate, muscle tension, skin conductance or breathing is monitored; she gets immediate visual or sound feedback; she learns to relax to change the signal; and she can use the technique when she next feels stressed. Budzynski’s research could be credited. Full marks needed both monitoring and feedback; generic relaxation with no feedback scored at most 1.
• 11(b) A weakness of biofeedback (2 marks): for example, high stress is hard to recreate in a session, it ignores the underlying cause such as work, the equipment may not be portable, motivation is needed, and learning takes several sessions. Full marks needed a link to managing stress.
• 12(a) Describe Yokley and Glenwick (1984) (6 marks): point-marked up to 6. Full marks needed the sample, two experimental conditions (2 marks) and a result, plus two more points. The sample: 1,133 immunisation-deficient preschool children (under 5) and their parents from a public health clinic in a Midwest city, about 64% Caucasian; giving 2,101 as the sample scored nothing, because the 1,133 were drawn from those 2,101 children. The conditions: a general prompt, a specific prompt, increased access (extra clinic hours or free childcare), a monetary incentive (a lottery for cash prizes), a contact control and a no-contact control. Measures over 12 weeks included the number of children inoculated, clinic attendance and total inoculations. Results: the monetary incentive had the biggest effect, then increased access, then the specific prompt, with the general prompt least effective; all but the general prompt improved on the controls, and the specific prompt was the most cost-effective. Just stating that the monetary condition offered money scored nothing.
• 12(b) Evaluate, including the use of children (10 marks): for, targeting under-5s can raise inoculation rates, improving the children’s future health and herd immunity; against, the children could not consent, so parental consent mattered, though the reminders were part of normal clinic contact. Other issues: field experiment strengths and weaknesses (records of actual immunisations avoid self-report bias), generalisation from one Midwest town and from a different era of attitudes to vaccination, validity from objective health records and the length of the study, ethics, determinism and practical problems. The scheme noted that no questionnaire was used.

Section D: Organisational Psychology (Questions 13 to 16)

• 13 Low QWL scores for night shift workers (4 marks): a QWL feature plus an example for the workers, twice (or one feature with three examples). Credited: fair pay (they expect more for unsociable hours), safe and healthy conditions (fatigue and mistakes at night), opportunities to develop skills (no training on nights), total life space or work-life balance, and less contact with day staff. Social relevance and constitutionalism were not credited, and no reference to night shift work capped the answer at 3.
• 14(a) One of Muczyk and Reimann’s styles (2 marks): 1 for naming it and 1 for outlining both the amount of direction and the level of participation in decisions. For example, the directive democrat monitors workers closely but encourages strong participation in decisions. The other styles are the directive autocrat, permissive autocrat and permissive democrat.
• 14(b) Why the styles are nomothetic (2 marks): nomothetic means a general law that applies to many people; here every leader can be placed into one of four categories using the same two dimensions, which also allows leaders to be counted and compared across organisations. Explaining why it is not idiographic scored nothing.
• 15(a)(i) The baker (2 marks): an effective (star or exemplary) follower, who is active and an independent thinker, or a conformist, who is active and does not question authority.
• 15(a)(ii) The packer (2 marks): a passive follower (sheep) or a conformist (yes person), who follows instructions without questioning. It had to be a different style from 15(a)(i).
• 15(b) A strength of followership (2 marks): practical application, such as hiring or training people for the follower type a role needs, reducing ineffective styles such as alienated followers, or being fairly holistic. “Generalisable” scored nothing.
• 16(a) Describe physical work conditions and the Hawthorne effect, and an open plan office study (6 marks): the Hawthorne studies (1924 to 1933, at a plant in Chicago) changed lighting, humidity and temperature and interviewed more than 20,000 employees; productivity rose whatever was changed, which was put down to the attention the workers received. For open plan offices, Oldham and Brass (1979) studied newspaper employees before and after a move to an open plan office, with questionnaires about 8 weeks before and 9 and 18 weeks after; internal motivation and satisfaction fell and concentration became harder. Kompier’s study, or any other open plan study, was also credited. Level 3 for the open plan study needed a result, and note that Oldham and Brass did not measure productivity.
• 16(b) Evaluate, including longitudinal studies (10 marks): both studies were longitudinal, showing change over time, but with risks of attrition, researchers becoming over-involved and selective reporting. Other issues: experiments (the Hawthorne studies) and quasi-experiments (Oldham and Brass), ecological validity, demand characteristics and social desirability in self-reports, uncontrolled variables such as a change of supervisor, questionnaires, quantitative and qualitative data, determinism and reductionism.

Where the marks are on 9990/32

For a candidate answering two options:

Question type	Assessment	Marks per option	Marks on the paper
Short application and explanation questions	Point-marked	14	28
6-mark describe	AO1 grid (Table A)	6	12
10-mark evaluate with a named issue	AO3 grid (Table B)	10	20
Total		30	60

• The evaluate essays are a third of the paper, and the named issue alone decides whether you can score above 4.
• The short questions carry 28 marks, and many cap you if you ignore the person in the scenario (Tara, Samuel, Ken, the night shift workers) or the product.
• The describe questions need both topics, and the studies need a result to reach Level 3.

How to self-mark 9990/32 with the mark scheme

1. Learn the layout. A slash or “or” separates ways of making the same point; semicolons or a (1) separate different points. Text in brackets is for the examiner.
2. Check the context caps first on Questions 1, 3(a), 5, 9 and 13, then count your points.
3. Level each topic of the 6-mark describe separately and add them. For the studies in 8(a) and 16(a), confirm you gave a result before awarding Level 3.
4. For 12(a), tick points and check you have the sample, two experimental conditions and a result.
5. For the 10-mark essay, find the named issue. If it is missing, stop at 4. Otherwise level each paragraph, mark where you analysed and where you used the study’s context, then take the best fit, not the sum.
6. Log each lost mark as missing knowledge, missing context or missing analysis, and practise that next.

Sit 9990/32 as a timed mock

The paper allows 90 minutes for 60 marks, so give each option about 43 minutes:

Block	Marks	Time
First option: three short questions	14	20 minutes
First option: 6-mark describe	6	8 minutes
First option: 10-mark evaluate	10	15 minutes
Second option: three short questions	14	20 minutes
Second option: 6-mark describe	6	8 minutes
Second option: 10-mark evaluate	10	15 minutes
Check context, named issues and results	–	4 minutes
Total	60	90 minutes

Open each 10-mark essay with the named issue so it cannot be missed.

Other May/June 2026 9990 papers

• 9990 Paper 12 (Approaches, Issues and Debates)
• 9990 Paper 22 (Research Methods)
• 9990 Paper 42 (Specialist Options: Application and Research Methods)

Practise and download

• Download 9990/32 and its mark scheme on the Learning Portal →
• All 9990 May/June 2026 papers: overview and marking patterns
• Try a free A Level Psychology quiz

Need help with a 9990 topic? Book a free trial lesson with an A Level Psychology tutor →

Frequently asked questions

What came up on 9990 Paper 32 May/June 2026? +

Clinical: Beck's theory of depression, applied tension, REBT, and kleptomania, pyromania and the K-SAS. Consumer: product placement, slogans, queue intrusions, and point of purchase and heuristics studies. Health: delay in seeking treatment, Savage and Armstrong, biofeedback, and Yokley and Glenwick. Organisational: the QWL, Muczyk and Reimann, Kelley's followership, and the Hawthorne studies and open plan offices.

How many questions do you answer on 9990/32? +

Eight questions: all four questions in each of the two options you studied. Each option is worth 30 marks, giving 60 marks in 1 hour 30 minutes. You write in a separate answer booklet.

What were the named issues in the 10-mark essays on 9990/32? +

Questionnaires for Clinical (Question 4(b)), experiments for Consumer (Question 8(b)), the use of children in research for Health (Question 12(b)) and longitudinal studies for Organisational (Question 16(b)). An essay without its named issue was capped at 4 marks.

How are the 6-mark describe questions on 9990/32 marked? +

In Questions 4(a), 8(a) and 16(a), each of the two topics is given its own level, worth 1 to 3 marks, and the two are added, so two Level 3 answers make 6. Question 12(a), on one study, was point-marked up to 6, with the sample, two experimental conditions and a result needed for full marks.

How is the 10-mark evaluate question levelled on 9990/32? +

Each evaluation point is levelled and the overall mark is a best fit. Level 5 (9 to 10) needs very detailed evaluation, two or more clear analysis points and very effective use of context. One Level 4 point with two Level 3 points scores 7, and any number of Level 2 points scores 4.

Where can I download 9990/32 May/June 2026 and its mark scheme? +

Both are free to download and print on the Tutopiya Learning Portal, on the Cambridge AS & A Level Psychology 9990 past papers page.

Ready to Excel in Your Studies?

Get personalised help from Tutopiya's expert tutors. Whether it's IGCSE, IB, A-Levels, or any other curriculum — we match you with the perfect tutor and your first session is free.

Book Your Free Trial