Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Plan experiments, hypotheses and controls

Define an experiment clearly, choose a design, operationalise variables and control avoidable differences.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · RM-EXPERIMENTS / MC-AIMS-HYPOTHESES / MC-VARIABLES / MC-CONTROLS

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. These lessons are independent study support, not Cambridge material, official mark schemes or awarded grades. No lesson reproduces a research article or Cambridge question.

Before you begin

  • This pathway supports the 2028–2030 syllabus only. AS candidates take Papers 1 and 2; A Level candidates also study two of the four specialist options and take Papers 3 and 4. The separate 2027 syllabus is not mapped here.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

A researcher assigns different participants to each condition. Which design is this?

What you will learn

  • Compare laboratory and field experiments and their trade-offs
  • Choose and justify an experimental design
  • Write a measurable aim and hypotheses
  • Operationalise variables and standardise a procedure

Experiments test the effect of a deliberately changed condition

An experiment manipulates an independent variable (IV) and measures a dependent variable (DV), while controlling other factors as far as practical. In a laboratory experiment, the researcher controls the setting closely; this can improve control but make behaviour less natural. A field experiment takes place in a real-life setting; behaviour may be more natural, while extraneous influences are harder to control. Neither setting guarantees validity.

The IV must have clear levels, and the DV needs an observable measure. An operational definition says exactly what counts and how it is recorded. An aim states the research purpose. A null hypothesis predicts no difference or relationship; an alternative predicts one. A directional alternative states which condition is expected to score higher; a non-directional alternative predicts a difference without choosing a direction.

Design determines who experiences each condition

Independent measures use different participants in each condition, avoiding carry-over but risking participant differences. Repeated measures use the same participants in every condition, controlling stable participant differences but risking order effects such as fatigue or practice. Matched pairs use different participants matched on relevant characteristics; matching can reduce, but cannot eliminate, participant differences.

Random allocation assigns participants to conditions by chance; it is not the same as random sampling from a population. Counterbalancing varies condition order across participants to reduce systematic order effects. A control group or condition provides a comparison, but it should be similar enough for the target IV to be the meaningful difference.

Standardisation improves a fair comparison

Keep instructions, timing, materials, room conditions and scoring rules consistent when they could affect the DV. Participant variables arise from differences between people; situational variables arise from the setting. A control is a planned way to hold a relevant factor constant, measure it, or distribute it across conditions. A control cannot remove every possible influence.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

Why might a repeated-measures study counterbalance condition order?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A researcher tests whether a five-minute distraction changes immediate word recall. Write a measurable aim and one suitable directional hypothesis.

Show the worked solution
  1. State both conditions of the manipulated variable: distraction during study versus quiet study.
  2. Define the outcome as the number of list words correctly recalled after a fixed interval.
  3. A directional prediction must state which condition is expected to produce more correct words.

Answer Aim: to investigate whether a five-minute distraction during learning affects immediate word recall. Directional alternative: participants who study in quiet will correctly recall more words after the fixed interval than participants distracted during study.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

A study compares quiet revision with revision while notification sounds play. Define the IV and a measurable DV, then write a non-directional alternative hypothesis.

Give me a hint

Name the two conditions and define a countable outcome.

Compare my reasoning
  1. IV: revision condition (quiet or notification sounds).
  2. DV: number of correct answers on the same 20-item recall test completed within 10 minutes.
  3. A non-directional alternative predicts a difference without specifying which group scores higher.

There will be a difference in the number of correct answers between learners revising in quiet and learners revising with notification sounds.

Look for these in your work

  • Both IV levels stated
  • DV is measurable and timed
  • Hypothesis predicts a difference but no direction
2 · Independent

A researcher uses the same 12 participants in a calm and a noisy condition. Identify the design and one relevant control.

Give me a hint

The same participants appear in each condition.

Compare my reasoning
  1. This is a repeated-measures design.
  2. Use the same task, instructions, room, duration and scoring rule in both conditions.
  3. Counterbalance order across participants to reduce practice or fatigue affecting one condition more than the other.

Repeated measures; standardise the task and counterbalance condition order.

Look for these in your work

  • Design identified
  • A concrete standardisation stated
  • Order effects addressed
3 · Transfer

A school tests whether a new sign reduces corridor congestion. Propose a field experiment and name a limitation that should be controlled or acknowledged.

Give me a hint

Specify the sign condition, a countable congestion outcome and a fair comparison period.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Compare matched corridor periods with the usual sign and the new sign, keeping the route and observation interval constant.
  2. Operationalise congestion, for example the number of students passing a marked point during a 10-minute interval.
  3. Record relevant situational differences such as lesson-change timing, while noting that a busy corridor is not fully controllable.

A field experiment could compare the count in equivalent 10-minute periods with usual versus new signs; timing and route should be standardised, and uncontrolled crowd differences acknowledged.

Look for these in your work

  • IV and comparison identified
  • DV is operationalised
  • A real field limitation is explained

Common mistakes

  • Calling random allocation random sampling: one assigns participants to conditions, while the other selects from a population.
  • Using a DV such as ‘memory’ without a recordable measure.
  • Claiming a field experiment is automatically more valid or ethical.
  • Writing a directional hypothesis without stating the predicted direction.
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

What makes a dependent variable operationalised?

Compare with the explanation

The outcome and its measurement rule are specified clearly enough to apply consistently.

For example, ‘number of list words correctly recalled in two minutes’ defines both what is counted and the time window.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

How do an operationalised IV and DV, a suitable experimental design and standardised procedure support a fair test?

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.