A Level Psychology: Approaches, Issues and Debates (Cambridge 9990)

This guide covers Paper 1 Approaches, Issues and Debates, an AS Level paper for Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990, sat by both AS-only candidates and those continuing to the full A Level.

Where this fits in 9990

Paper 1 introduces the four core theoretical approaches psychology uses to explain behaviour, before the syllabus moves on to specific areas of application. Every later topic in 9990 is examined through the lens of one or more of these approaches, so a shaky grasp of any one of the four tends to resurface as difficulty explaining or evaluating studies drawn from that approach later in the course. This makes Paper 1 unusually foundational compared with most other AS papers, since its content is not simply tested once and set aside but is actively reused as the analytical toolkit for the rest of the qualification.

Syllabus coverage

CAMBRIDGE AS & A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY 9990 — PAPER 1 APPROACHES, ISSUES AND DEBATES

• 1.1 The Biological Approach — explaining behaviour through physiological processes, including the nervous system, hormones and genetics
• 1.2 The Cognitive Approach — explaining behaviour through internal mental processes such as memory, perception and thinking
• 1.3 The Learning Approach — explaining behaviour through conditioning and observational learning
• 1.4 The Social Approach — explaining behaviour through the influence of other people and the social context

How to approach it

Each approach is examined both on its own terms and through named core studies that illustrate it, so revision needs to pair the theoretical assumptions of each approach with specific supporting evidence — being able to describe a named study’s method, findings and a genuine criticism of it, for each of the four approaches, is consistently tested. Evaluation is where most marks are gained or lost: practise comparing approaches directly (for instance, contrasting how the Biological and Learning Approaches would each explain the same behaviour) rather than evaluating each approach only in isolation, since “compare and contrast” style questions reward exactly that kind of cross-approach thinking. Because this paper’s title includes “Issues and Debates,” candidates should also be comfortable applying the five AS Level issues and debates the syllabus names — the application of psychology to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, nature versus nurture, the use of children in psychological research and the use of animals in psychological research — to each of the four approaches and their core studies, rather than treating those debates as a separate, disconnected block of revision. (Reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free will, idiographic versus nomothetic and cultural differences are A Level issues and debates for the specialist options on Papers 3 and 4, not Paper 1 content.) A simple grid — one row per approach, columns for its main assumptions, its three core studies, a criticism of each study, and how each study relates to the AS Level issues and debates — is a genuinely useful revision tool here, since it forces the cross-approach comparisons the paper actually rewards rather than four separate, siloed summaries.

The four approaches at a glance

Approach	Core explanation	Core studies (syllabus 3.1.1)
Biological	Behaviour, cognitions and emotions explained through the working of the brain and the effect of hormones, genetics and evolution	Dement and Kleitman; Hassett et al.; Hölzel et al.
Cognitive	Information processed through an input – process – output route, with individual differences in attention, language, thinking and memory	Andrade; Baron-Cohen et al.; Pozzulo et al.
Learning	Behaviour shaped by experience through operant conditioning, classical conditioning and social learning	Bandura et al.; Fagen et al.; Saavedra and Silverman
Social	Behaviour, cognitions and emotions influenced by social contexts and by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others	Milgram; Perry et al.; Piliavin et al.

Why “issues and debates” is not a separate revision block

A common mistake is treating Issues and Debates as a fifth, standalone topic to revise once, rather than a lens applied to each of the four approaches individually. Nature versus nurture, for example, looks different from each approach’s perspective: the Biological Approach leans toward nature (genetics, physiology), the Learning Approach leans toward nurture (environment, conditioning), and the Cognitive and Social Approaches typically sit somewhere between the two, depending on the specific study being discussed. The same applies to individual versus situational explanations — Milgram’s study considers dispositional and situational hypotheses for obedience, while Perry et al. examine how an individual difference (empathy) changes the effect of oxytocin on personal space. The use of children (Bandura et al., Pozzulo et al., Saavedra and Silverman) and the use of animals (Hassett et al., Fagen et al.) in psychological research are likewise best revised through the named core studies that raise them. Being able to apply these debates approach-by-approach, rather than reciting a generic definition of “nature versus nurture,” is what separates a strong evaluative answer from a weak one.

Comparing approaches head-to-head

Because “compare and contrast” questions are a recurring format, it helps to have, for each pair of approaches, at least one behaviour or phenomenon you can explain from both angles and then compare directly — for instance, contrasting how the Biological Approach and the Learning Approach would each account for the same behaviour, one through physiology and genetics, the other through conditioning and environmental reinforcement. Preparing two or three such worked comparisons in advance, across different pairings of the four approaches, is more efficient revision than trying to improvise a comparison from scratch in the exam, since the underlying structure of a good comparison (state each approach’s explanation, then explicitly weigh them against each other) is reusable regardless of which specific pairing comes up.

Named studies are non-negotiable

Cambridge 9990’s mark schemes consistently expect a specific, named study as evidence for each approach, not a general description of “an experiment.” For each of the four approaches, candidates should be able to state: the named researcher(s) and study, its aim, its method (including sample and procedure in outline), its key finding, and at least one genuine methodological or ethical criticism. A study recalled only vaguely (“a psychologist did an experiment on memory”) earns substantially less credit than one recalled precisely, even where the underlying point being made is correct.

The syllabus names 12 compulsory core studies, three for each approach (section 3.1.1, listed there in alphabetical order within each approach). Paper 1 tests these directly, and the grouping by approach is itself examinable:

Biological approach

• Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
• Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences)
• Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans)

Cognitive approach

• Andrade (doodling)
• Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test)
• Pozzulo et al. (line-ups)

Learning approach

• Bandura et al. (aggression)
• Fagen et al. (elephant learning)
• Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)

Social approach

• Milgram (obedience)
• Perry et al. (personal space)
• Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)

For each one the syllabus expects the psychology being investigated, the background, the aim(s), the procedure (including research method, sample, design, controls and variables), the ethical issues, the results, the conclusions, and the strengths and weaknesses of every element of the study.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus for 2024, 2025 and 2026 — cambridgeinternational.org.