CIE A-Level Psychology: Core Knowledge Points and Study Planning — CIE A-Level 心理学：核心知识点与学习规划

一、CIE A-Level 心理学考纲结构：9990大纲的四大取向与考试架构 | CIE A-Level Psychology Syllabus Structure: The Four Approaches and Exam Layout of 9990

CIE A-Level 心理学（剑桥国际考试代码 9990）是面向 16 至 19 岁学生的进阶心理学课程。整个课程以”四个取向”（Four Approaches）为主线组织起来：生物取向（Biological Approach）、认知取向（Cognitive Approach）、学习取向（Learning Approach）和社会取向（Social Approach）。每个取向都包含三项经典核心研究（Core Studies），学生需要掌握每一项研究的背景、目的、程序、结果、结论，以及研究背后的方法论与伦理问题。这十二项核心研究构成了 AS 阶段的考试核心，也是后续 A2 阶段专业选修模块的知识基础。

CIE A-Level Psychology (Cambridge International syllabus code 9990) is an advanced psychology course designed for students aged 16 to 19. The entire course is organised around four approaches: the Biological Approach, the Cognitive Approach, the Learning Approach and the Social Approach. Each approach contains three classic core studies, and students must master the background, aim, procedure, results, conclusions, and the underlying methodological and ethical issues of every study. These twelve core studies form the examination core of the AS stage and also serve as the knowledge foundation for the specialist options in the A2 stage.

考试分为四个试卷（Papers）。AS 阶段考 Paper 1（Approaches, Issues and Debates，取向、议题与争论）和 Paper 2（Research Methods，研究方法）；A2 阶段考 Paper 3（Specialist Options: Theory，专业选修理论）和 Paper 4（Specialist Options: Application，专业选修应用）。四份试卷各 1 小时 30 分钟、各 60 分，合计 240 分。理解这个结构是制定学习规划的第一步，因为不同试卷考察的能力完全不同：Paper 1 侧重知识记忆与评价，Paper 2 侧重方法设计与数据分析，Paper 3 和 Paper 4 则侧重对选修模块的深度理解与实际应用。

The examination is divided into four papers. The AS stage covers Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) and Paper 2 (Research Methods), while the A2 stage covers Paper 3 (Specialist Options: Theory) and Paper 4 (Specialist Options: Application). Each paper lasts 1 hour 30 minutes and carries 60 marks, for a total of 240 marks. Understanding this structure is the first step in planning your study, because each paper tests very different skills: Paper 1 focuses on knowledge recall and evaluation, Paper 2 on research design and data analysis, and Papers 3 and 4 on deep understanding and practical application of the specialist options.

二、生物取向的三项核心研究：Canli、Dement & Kleitman 与 Schachter & Singer | The Biological Approach: Canli, Dement & Kleitman and Schachter & Singer

生物取向认为，人类行为和心理过程主要受到生理因素（大脑结构、神经递质、激素、基因）的影响。第一项核心研究是 Canli et al. (2000)。研究者让被试观看一组情绪图片，同时用功能性磁共振成像（fMRI）记录其杏仁核（amygdala）的活动强度。三周后，被试被要求回忆这些图片。结果显示，杏仁核激活程度越高，被试对图片的记忆越牢固。这项研究支持了”情绪唤醒促进记忆巩固”的结论，说明生物结构与记忆过程之间存在直接联系。

The Biological Approach argues that human behaviour and mental processes are primarily influenced by physiological factors such as brain structure, neurotransmitters, hormones and genes. The first core study is Canli et al. (2000). Participants viewed a set of emotional images while their amygdala activity was recorded using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Three weeks later, participants were asked to recall the images. Results showed that the stronger the amygdala activation, the better the memory for the image. This study supports the conclusion that emotional arousal promotes memory consolidation, demonstrating a direct link between biological structure and memory processes.

第二项是 Dement and Kleitman (1957)，睡眠与梦境的经典研究。研究者在被试睡眠期间监测其脑电波（EEG）和眼动（EOG），并在不同睡眠阶段将其唤醒，询问是否正在做梦。结果发现，在快速眼动睡眠（REM sleep）阶段被唤醒时，被试报告做梦的比例显著更高，且梦的内容与眼动方向存在一定关联。这项研究建立了”REM 睡眠与做梦高度相关”这一重要结论，为后续睡眠研究奠定了基础。

The second is Dement and Kleitman (1957), the classic study of sleep and dreaming. The researchers monitored participants’ brain waves (EEG) and eye movements (EOG) during sleep, and woke them at different sleep stages to ask whether they were dreaming. Results showed that participants woken during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep reported dreaming at a significantly higher rate, and there was some association between dream content and eye movement direction. This study established the important conclusion that REM sleep is closely associated with dreaming, laying the groundwork for subsequent sleep research.

第三项是 Schachter and Singer (1962)，情绪的双因素理论（Two-Factor Theory）。研究者给被试注射肾上腺素（epinephrine），并分别告知或隐瞒注射的真实生理效应，随后让被试处于快乐或愤怒的情境中。结果发现，被试的情绪体验取决于”生理唤醒”和”对唤醒的认知解释”两个因素的结合：同样的生理唤醒，在不同认知标签下会产生不同的情绪体验。这项研究说明，情绪并非单纯的生理反应，认知评估在其中扮演关键角色。

The third is Schachter and Singer (1962), which proposed the Two-Factor Theory of emotion. The researchers injected participants with epinephrine, and either informed or misled them about the true physiological effects of the injection, then placed them in either a happy or an angry situation. Results showed that the emotional experience depended on the combination of physiological arousal and the cognitive interpretation of that arousal: the same physiological arousal produced different emotional experiences under different cognitive labels. This study shows that emotion is not a purely physiological response, and that cognitive appraisal plays a key role.

三、认知取向的三项核心研究：Andrade、Baron-Cohen 与 Laney | The Cognitive Approach: Andrade, Baron-Cohen and Laney

认知取向关注信息加工过程，如注意、记忆、思维与语言。第一项研究是 Andrade (2010)，关于”涂鸦与注意力”的研究。被试被要求在接听一段冗长的电话留言时，一半人边听边自由涂鸦（doodling），另一半人不涂鸦。随后进行记忆测试。结果显示，涂鸦组对留言中意外信息的记忆显著优于对照组。研究者认为，涂鸦通过占用较少的认知资源防止了”白日梦”式的注意力涣散，从而改善了注意力和记忆。

The Cognitive Approach focuses on information processing such as attention, memory, thinking and language. The first study is Andrade (2010), on doodling and concentration. Participants were asked to listen to a long, dull telephone message; half doodled freely while listening, and the other half did not. A memory test followed. Results showed that the doodling group recalled significantly more of the unexpected information in the message than the control group. The researcher argued that doodling occupies few cognitive resources, preventing the kind of daydreaming that causes attention to wander, thereby improving attention and memory.

第二项是 Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)，关于孤独症与”读心”能力的研究。研究者使用”通过眼神读心测试”（Eyes Test），要求被试仅通过观察眼部区域照片来判断人物的心理状态。结果发现，患有高功能孤独症或阿斯伯格综合征的成年人得分显著低于正常对照组，说明他们推测他人心理状态（心理理论，Theory of Mind）的能力存在缺陷。这项研究对理解孤独症的核心认知特征具有重要意义。

The second is Baron-Cohen et al. (2001), a study of autism and “mind-reading” ability. The researchers used the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test”, asking participants to judge a person’s mental state based only on photographs of the eye region. Results showed that adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome scored significantly lower than the control group, indicating a deficit in their ability to infer others’ mental states (Theory of Mind). This study is important for understanding the core cognitive features of autism.

第三项是 Laney et al. (2008)，关于虚假记忆（False Memory）的研究。研究者通过一份伪造的问卷和反馈，让被试相信自己在童年时曾经爱吃芦笋。结果发现，接受虚假反馈的被试在随后的测试中更倾向于”回忆”起对芦笋的喜爱，甚至表现出对芦笋的积极态度。这项研究揭示了记忆的可塑性：外部信息可以”植入”虚假的自传体记忆，对理解记忆建构性和目击证词的可靠性具有重要意义。

The third is Laney et al. (2008), a study of false memory. Through a fabricated questionnaire and feedback, the researchers led participants to believe that they had loved eating asparagus in childhood. Results showed that participants who received the false feedback were more likely to “recall” a fondness for asparagus in subsequent tests, and even showed positive attitudes towards it. This study reveals the plasticity of memory: external information can “implant” false autobiographical memories, which has important implications for understanding the constructive nature of memory and the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

四、学习取向的三项核心研究：Bandura、Saavedra & Silverman 与 Pepperberg | The Learning Approach: Bandura, Saavedra & Silverman and Pepperberg

学习取向认为，行为主要通过条件作用和观察学习习得。第一项研究是 Bandura et al. (1961) 的”波波玩偶”实验。儿童观察成人榜样对充气玩偶（Bobo doll）表现出的攻击行为后，在自由游戏阶段模仿了这些攻击行为，包括使用与榜样相同的话语和动作。这项研究提出了”社会学习理论”（Social Learning Theory），证明攻击行为可以通过观察和模仿习得，是心理学史上最具影响力的研究之一。

The Learning Approach argues that behaviour is acquired primarily through conditioning and observational learning. The first study is Bandura et al. (1961), the famous “Bobo doll” experiment. After observing an adult model behaving aggressively towards an inflatable doll, children imitated these aggressive behaviours during free play, including using the same words and actions as the model. This study put forward Social Learning Theory, demonstrating that aggressive behaviour can be learned through observation and imitation, and it remains one of the most influential studies in the history of psychology.

第二项是 Saavedra and Silverman (2002)，关于特定恐惧症的治疗研究。研究者以一名对纽扣有强烈恐惧的男孩为被试，采用”暴露疗法”（exposure therapy），在放松状态下逐步让被试接触纽扣。经过治疗，男孩的纽扣恐惧显著减轻。这项案例研究展示了经典条件作用原理在临床治疗中的应用，说明习得的恐惧可以通过”去条件化”加以消除。

The second is Saavedra and Silverman (2002), a treatment study of a specific phobia. Using a boy with a strong fear of buttons as the participant, the researchers applied exposure therapy, gradually exposing him to buttons while he was in a relaxed state. After treatment, the boy’s button phobia was significantly reduced. This case study demonstrates the clinical application of classical conditioning principles, showing that learned fears can be eliminated through deconditioning.

第三项是 Pepperberg (1987)，关于非洲灰鹦鹉”亚历克斯”（Alex）的研究。研究者通过多年的”模型/竞争者”训练法（model/rival technique），教会了亚历克斯识别物体的形状、颜色和材质，并能用英语词汇进行命名和回答数量问题。这项研究挑战了”只有人类才具备语言和认知能力”的传统观点，表明非人类动物也能够习得符号沟通能力。

The third is Pepperberg (1987), a study of the African grey parrot “Alex”. Using the “model/rival” training technique over many years, the researcher taught Alex to identify the shape, colour and material of objects, and to name them and answer quantity questions using English words. This study challenged the traditional view that only humans possess language and cognitive abilities, demonstrating that non-human animals can also acquire symbolic communication skills.

五、社会取向的三项核心研究：Milgram、Piliavin 与 Yamamoto | The Social Approach: Milgram, Piliavin and Yamamoto

社会取向研究个体行为如何受到社会环境和他人的影响。第一项研究是 Milgram (1963)，服从权威的经典实验。被试被要求以”教师”身份，在”学习者”答错时施加电击，且电压逐级升高。结果发现，尽管许多被试表现出明显的不适，仍有约 65% 的人在权威（实验者）的要求下施加了最高电压的电击。这项研究深刻揭示了情境和权威对个体行为的巨大影响力，同时也引发了关于研究伦理的激烈讨论。

The Social Approach studies how individual behaviour is influenced by the social environment and other people. The first study is Milgram (1963), the classic experiment on obedience to authority. Participants were asked to act as a “teacher” and to deliver electric shocks to a “learner” whenever a wrong answer was given, with the voltage increasing each time. Results showed that although many participants showed clear distress, about 65% still delivered the maximum shock when instructed by the authority figure (the experimenter). This study profoundly revealed the enormous influence of situation and authority on individual behaviour, and also sparked intense debate about research ethics.

第二项是 Piliavin et al. (1969)，地铁上的”旁观者干预”研究。研究者在纽约地铁车厢内安排一位”受害者”突然晕倒（有时扮作持拐杖的残疾人，有时扮作疑似醉酒者），观察乘客的反应。结果发现，乘客对”残疾人”的帮助明显多于对”醉酒者”，且旁观者人数增多并未显著抑制帮助行为。这项研究对”旁观者效应”（bystander effect）提出了修正，说明帮助行为的决定因素比想象中更复杂。

The second is Piliavin et al. (1969), the “bystander intervention” study on the subway. The researchers arranged for a “victim” to suddenly collapse in a New York subway carriage (sometimes appearing as a disabled person with a cane, sometimes as a man who appeared drunk), and observed passengers’ reactions. Results showed that passengers helped the “disabled person” significantly more than the “drunk person”, and that a larger number of bystanders did not significantly inhibit helping behaviour. This study revised the bystander effect, showing that the determinants of helping behaviour are more complex than previously thought.

第三项是 Yamamoto et al. (2012)，关于黑猩猩”目标性帮助”行为的研究。研究者设置情境，让黑猩猩在”能理解对方需求”和”不理解对方需求”两种条件下选择是否递出工具帮助同伴。结果发现，黑猩猩更倾向于在明确看到同伴需要某个工具时才提供帮助，表现出”目标性帮助”（targeted helping）的特征。这项研究说明，帮助行为并非人类独有，其进化根源可能存在于人类的近亲之中。

The third is Yamamoto et al. (2012), a study of “targeted helping” in chimpanzees. The researchers set up situations in which chimpanzees could choose whether to pass a tool to help a companion, under conditions where they either understood the other’s need or did not. Results showed that chimpanzees were more likely to offer help when they could clearly see that the companion needed a particular tool, demonstrating features of targeted helping. This study suggests that helping behaviour is not unique to humans, and that its evolutionary roots may lie in our closest relatives.

六、研究方法：实验、观察、自我报告与数据分析 | Research Methods: Experiments, Observations, Self-Reports and Data Analysis

Paper 2 考察的研究方法是这门课的另一半核心。实验法分为实验室实验（lab experiment）、现场实验（field experiment）、自然实验（natural experiment）和准实验（quasi-experiment）。学生需要理解自变量（IV）、因变量（DV）、额外变量（extraneous variable）和混淆变量（confounding variable）的区别，并能够提出方向性假设（directional hypothesis）、非方向性假设（non-directional hypothesis）和零假设（null hypothesis）。此外，抽样方法（随机抽样、机会抽样、志愿者抽样、分层抽样）也是常考内容。

The research methods tested in Paper 2 form the other half of the course’s core. Experiments are divided into laboratory experiments, field experiments, natural experiments and quasi-experiments. Students need to understand the differences between the independent variable (IV), the dependent variable (DV), extraneous variables and confounding variables, and to be able to formulate directional, non-directional and null hypotheses. Sampling methods (random, opportunity, volunteer and stratified) are also frequently examined.

除了实验法，学生还需掌握观察法（自然观察、控制观察、参与式观察、非参与式观察、结构化与非结构化观察、公开与隐蔽观察）和自我报告法（问卷与访谈）。案例研究（case study）和相关研究（correlation study）虽然在因果推断上不如实验严格，但同样是重要的研究方法。数据分析方面，学生需要区分定量数据与定性数据，计算集中趋势（平均数、中位数、众数）和离散程度（全距、标准差），并能解读常见的统计图表。

In addition to experiments, students must master observational methods (naturalistic, controlled, participant, non-participant, structured and unstructured, overt and covert observation) and self-report methods (questionnaires and interviews). Case studies and correlational studies, although less rigorous than experiments for causal inference, are equally important research methods. For data analysis, students need to distinguish quantitative and qualitative data, calculate measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and measures of spread (range, standard deviation), and interpret common statistical charts.

研究伦理（ethics）是贯穿全课程的必考主题。学生必须熟悉六项核心伦理原则：知情同意（informed consent）、避免伤害（protection from harm）、保密性（confidentiality）、退出权利（right to withdraw）、欺骗的正当性（deception）以及事后解释（debriefing）。在评价任何一项研究时，既要指出其方法上的优缺点，也要评估其在伦理上是否站得住脚，这正是 Paper 1 与 Paper 2 评价题（evaluation questions）的高频得分点。

Research ethics is a mandatory theme that runs throughout the course. Students must be familiar with the six core ethical principles: informed consent, protection from harm, confidentiality, the right to withdraw, the justification of deception, and debriefing. When evaluating any study, you should point out both its methodological strengths and weaknesses and assess whether it is ethically defensible; this is a high-frequency source of marks in the evaluation questions of Paper 1 and Paper 2.

七、议题与争论：先天对后天、个体对情境、还原论对整体论 | Issues and Debates: Nature vs Nurture, Individual vs Situational, Reductionism vs Holism

Paper 1 的另一个重点是对”议题与争论”（Issues and Debates）的评价能力。首先是”先天 vs 后天”（nature vs nurture）：生物取向偏向先天解释（基因、脑结构决定行为），而学习取向偏向后天解释（环境与经验塑造行为）。其次是”个体 vs 情境”（individual vs situational）：认知取向和学习取向强调个体内部因素（思维、习得经验），而社会取向强调情境因素（权威、社会压力）。Milgram 的服从实验正是”情境解释”的经典例证。

Another focus of Paper 1 is the ability to evaluate issues and debates. The first is nature versus nurture: the biological approach leans towards nature explanations (genes and brain structure determine behaviour), while the learning approach leans towards nurture explanations (environment and experience shape behaviour). The second is individual versus situational: the cognitive and learning approaches emphasise internal factors (thinking, learned experience), while the social approach emphasises situational factors (authority, social pressure). Milgram’s obedience experiment is a classic example of a situational explanation.

此外还有”还原论 vs 整体论”（reductionism vs holism）、”决定论 vs 自由意志”（determinism vs free will）以及”研究的有用性”（usefulness of research）等争论。考试中，学生需要能够就某一具体研究，讨论其在多大程度上支持某一方立场，并援引研究证据加以论证。这一部分考察的不是死记硬背，而是批判性思维与论证组织能力，是区分高分与低分的关键环节。

There are also debates such as reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free will, and the usefulness of research. In the examination, students need to be able to discuss, for a specific study, the extent to which it supports one side of a debate, and to argue with reference to research evidence. This section does not test rote memorisation but rather critical thinking and the ability to organise an argument, and it is the key differentiator between high and low marks.

八、考试题型解析：Paper 1 至 Paper 4 的评分与答题策略 | Exam Question Analysis: Marking and Answer Strategies for Papers 1 to 4

Paper 1（Approaches, Issues and Debates）由选择题和简答题组成，重点考察对十二项核心研究的知识掌握，以及运用研究方法术语进行评价的能力。典型题型包括：描述某项研究的目的与程序、说明某项研究的结果与结论、评价一项研究的方法与伦理。答题时要善用”研究术语”（如”这是实验法，自变量是……”）以获取满分。

Paper 1 (Approaches, Issues and Debates) consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, focusing on knowledge of the twelve core studies and the ability to evaluate them using research methods terminology. Typical question types include: describe the aim and procedure of a study, explain the results and conclusions of a study, and evaluate the method and ethics of a study. When answering, make good use of research terminology (for example, “this is an experiment, and the independent variable is…”) to earn full marks.

Paper 2（Research Methods）考察研究方法的设计与应用，通常以一道完整的”研究设计题”结尾，要求学生为一个给定情境设计一项研究（包括假设、变量、抽样、程序、伦理考虑和数据分析）。Paper 3（Specialist Options: Theory）和 Paper 4（Specialist Options: Application）则围绕学生选择的两个选修模块（异常心理学、消费者行为、健康心理学、组织心理学中的两个）展开，考察理论知识的深度理解与实际情境应用能力。

Paper 2 (Research Methods) tests the design and application of research methods, typically ending with a complete “research design question” that requires students to design a study for a given scenario (including hypothesis, variables, sampling, procedure, ethical considerations and data analysis). Paper 3 (Specialist Options: Theory) and Paper 4 (Specialist Options: Application) are based on the two specialist options the student has chosen (two of Abnormal Psychology, Consumer Behaviour, Health Psychology and Organisational Psychology), testing deep understanding of theory and the ability to apply it to real scenarios.

九、学习规划：分阶段的复习路线图与时间分配建议 | Study Planning: A Stage-by-Stage Revision Roadmap and Time Allocation Advice

制定有效的学习规划，建议按”理解、记忆、应用、评价”四个层次递进。第一阶段（开学至期中）以理解为主：逐项精读十二项核心研究，为每项研究整理一份”目的-程序-结果-结论-评价”的标准化卡片（flashcard），这是后续所有复习的基石。第二阶段（期中至考前两个月）以记忆与训练为主：背诵核心研究的关键细节，并开始刷 Paper 1 和 Paper 2 的历年真题，熟悉题型与评分标准。

To build an effective study plan, it is recommended to progress through four levels: understanding, memorisation, application and evaluation. In the first stage (from the start of term to mid-term), focus on understanding: read each of the twelve core studies in detail and compile a standardised flashcard for each one covering “aim, procedure, results, conclusion, evaluation”. This is the foundation for all subsequent revision. In the second stage (from mid-term to two months before the exam), focus on memorisation and practice: memorise the key details of the core studies, and begin working through past Paper 1 and Paper 2 papers to become familiar with question types and marking criteria.

第三阶段（考前两个月至考前一个月）以应用与评价为主：针对 Paper 2 的研究设计题进行专项训练，学会在限定时间内完成一份完整的研究设计；同时练习将”议题与争论”框架应用到具体研究中。第四阶段（考前最后一个月）以模拟与查漏补缺为主：完整限时模拟全套试卷，重点复盘错题，补齐薄弱的核心研究或方法术语。合理分配时间 – AS 阶段建议将约 40% 的时间投入核心研究，40% 投入研究方法，20% 投入议题与争论的评价训练。

In the third stage (from two months to one month before the exam), focus on application and evaluation: carry out targeted practice for Paper 2 research design questions, learning to complete a full research design within the time limit, and practise applying the issues and debates framework to specific studies. In the fourth stage (the final month before the exam), focus on mock exams and filling gaps: complete full timed mock papers, review mistakes carefully, and strengthen any weak core studies or method terminology. Allocate your time sensibly: at AS level, roughly 40% of your time should go to the core studies, 40% to research methods, and 20% to practising the evaluation of issues and debates.

Summary | 总结

CIE A-Level 心理学（9990）以四大取向为主线，串联十二项核心研究、研究方法、议题与争论以及四个考试试卷。生物取向（Canli、Dement & Kleitman、Schachter & Singer）解释行为的生理基础，认知取向（Andrade、Baron-Cohen、Laney）揭示信息加工的机制，学习取向（Bandura、Saavedra & Silverman、Pepperberg）说明行为如何通过经验习得，社会取向（Milgram、Piliavin、Yamamoto）展现情境与他人的影响力。研究方法与伦理贯穿始终，议题与争论则训练批判性思维。

CIE A-Level Psychology (9990) is organised around four approaches that connect twelve core studies, research methods, issues and debates, and four examination papers. The Biological Approach (Canli, Dement & Kleitman, Schachter & Singer) explains the physiological basis of behaviour; the Cognitive Approach (Andrade, Baron-Cohen, Laney) reveals the mechanisms of information processing; the Learning Approach (Bandura, Saavedra & Silverman, Pepperberg) shows how behaviour is acquired through experience; and the Social Approach (Milgram, Piliavin, Yamamoto) demonstrates the influence of situations and other people. Research methods and ethics run throughout the course, while issues and debates train critical thinking.

掌握这门课的关键，不在于逐字背诵，而在于建立”研究-理论-评价”三位一体的知识网络，并通过分阶段的复习规划将知识转化为应试能力。希望本文的结构梳理与学习建议，能帮助你更有条理地备考 CIE A-Level 心理学。

The key to mastering this course lies not in rote memorisation but in building a knowledge network that links study, theory and evaluation together, and in converting knowledge into examination performance through a stage-by-stage revision plan. We hope this structural overview and study advice helps you prepare for CIE A-Level Psychology in a more organised way.

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）