1.  Piliavin et al. developed a model to explain their results called the Arousal: Cost vs. Reward model.
They argue that firstly, observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional arousal in bystanders. This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on aspects of the situation.
This state of arousal can be increased by a number of factors including:
empathy with the victim (i.e. whether you can perceive yourself in the victims situation)
being close to the emergency
the length of time the emergency continues for.

2. This state of arousal can be reduced by a number of factors including:
helping
seeking help from another source
leaving the scene
deciding the person doesn’t need or deserve help.
Therefore according to this model we are motivated to help people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.

3. Evaluation point:
Field experiment… Weakness: lack of control over variables Strength: it takes place in a natural enviroment

4. Evaluation point: Sample
Weakness: Ethnocentrisms… This is a limitation because it means that we cannot generalise from the sample due to cultural bias- the sample is unrepresentative…
Strength: Sample is that it was fairly large. This is a strength as it means that the study has external validity. The sample of 4450 would be representative of the people who used the subway in NYC.

5. Evaluation point: Ethics
Strength: No physical harm was actually caused to anyone This is a strength as it means that individual rights and the BPS code of ethics were upheld.
However…
Lack of consent, or right to withdraw.
Psychological distress to participants.

6. Evaluation point: Type of data… Qualitative
Subjective - open to interpretation which can reduce internal reliability and validity, due to possibility of researcher bias.
Type of data…. Quantitative
Reductionist - it tell us there is a difference, but gives no insight into why.
Objective – minimal bias therefore high internal reliability and validity

7. Evaluation point: Covert observation
A strength is that it generates research with high ecological validity - as participants are unaware they are being observed, we tend to observe natural behaviour.
However, this type of observation is unethical, as it does not gain informed consent, removes the right to withdraw and can involve deception.

8. Outline the social area of psychology. (4)
Suggest one weakness of the social area of psychology. (3)
Suggest one strength of the social area of psychology. (3)
Discuss how the social approach provides a situational explanation of behaviour. (8)

9. Plan 2 3
1. What is social area? How does it provide situational explanation for behaviour “Discuss how” This requires… 2. Yes it does. Explain and example 3. No it doesn’t. Explain and example
Discuss how the social approach provides a situational explanation of behaviour. (8)

10. 1.
A situational explanation for behaviour suggests that environmental factors such as social stimuli and other people are significant influences on behaviour

11. 2. A strength of this explanation is that it allows changes in the environment to be made to encourage pro-social behaviour. Example:. Piliavin’s study showed that an apparently lame person is more likely to receive help than an apparently drunk person. Such knowledge allows us to encourage people to abstain from alcohol because if they collapse drunk they cannot expect any assistance! This study also showed a degree of same race helping, meaning white people were more likely to help white people than black people and vice versa. This may have been because there was more racial prejudice at the time Piliavin’s study was conducted. However we can manage behaviour by encouraging individuals not to show prejudice by teaching them that anyone, regardless of race or creed, in an accident situation should be offered help

12. Providing a situational explanation for behaviour is useful because it allows learning experiences to be designed to encourage desired behaviour. Piliavin’s study showed that men were more likely to help a victim than women when in a confined space. Schools could include scenarios in their PSHE lessons which would encourage girls to offer help to people in need, especially if there is no real risk to their own well-being

13. 3. A weakness of using a situational explanation for behaviour is that it is reductionist as it only focuses on aspects of the environment that can influence behaviour. For example, in Piliavin’s study although all the passengers in the carriage were in the same situation and witnessed the same event, men were more likely to help than women. This could have been because of individual differences such as personality and cognitions which may have influenced the participants’ behaviour as well as the situation

14. Examiner commentary
This response shows very good knowledge and understanding of the situational explanation for behaviour. The evaluation of the usefulness of the situational explanation for behaviour is very good and includes two strengths and one weakness of this explanation all of which are supported by appropriate evidence from Piliavin’s study. The response would be placed in Level 3.
Good knowledge and understanding of the situational explanation for behaviour is shown and there is a reasonable evaluation of this explanation with one strength and one weakness of the explanation being provided, both being supported by appropriate evidence from Piliavin’s study. The response would be placed in Level 2.
This shows sound knowledge and understanding of the social explanation for behaviour. One strength of using this explanation is provided (it offers opportunities for managing behaviour) but the supporting evidence is vague and very limited. The response would be placed in Level 1.
This also shows sound knowledge and understanding of the social explanation for behaviour. One strength and one weakness of using the explanation are provided but as neither is supported by any evidence the response must be placed in Level 1.

15. Page 18-19
themes-through-core-studies-candidate-style-answers-h567.pdf