Bystander intervention vs bystander effect
Bystander intervention — someone present at an emergency but not involved choosing to help. Bystander effect — the more people present, the less likely any one intervenes, and the slower help arrives. The spec splits the factors affecting intervention into two families: personal (about the bystander) and situational (about the circumstances). Place any factor in the right family and say why it pushes helping up or down.
Personal factors: expertise, mood, similarity
A personal factor is a feature of the bystander that travels with them to any emergency. Expertise — a trained bystander (first aider, lifeguard) is more likely to help, knowing what to do. Mood — a good mood raises helping; stress or rush lowers it. Similarity — people help those they see as like themselves (age, background, team). Learn each as a direction plus a reason, not the direction alone.
Situational factors — the circumstances
A situational factor is a feature of the circumstances: change them and the same person acts differently. Presence of others lowers helping via diffusion of responsibility (each assumes someone else will act) and pluralistic ignorance (each reads others' inaction as proof it is not an emergency). Cost of helping — danger, effort, time, embarrassment. Noticing — a noisy or ambiguous setting may hide the emergency.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Personal vs situational factor swapped
The biggest mark-loser: the two families are revised as one list, so the wrong one gets written. Asked for a personal factor, candidates give diffusion of responsibility (situational); asked for a situational factor, they give mood or expertise (personal). The check: is this about the helper, or the place?
Asked for a personal factor candidates gave a situational one (Nov 2020 P1 Q20 vs Q19); the same personality-versus-situational swap is reported on obedience (June 2023 P1 Q21a/b).
Factor named but not justified
Naming the factor is the easy mark; the thrown-away mark is the justification. The mark scheme wants a chain: name the factor and its family, state the direction (more or less likely to help), then give the reason — the mechanism. 'Explain a strength' answered by merely describing it fails the same way. The missing element is always the because.
Identification without justification is named in every Paper 1 report, most recently on strength and weakness items (June 2024 P1 Q11b, Q15b); the summaries state that candidates should not only describe when asked to explain (June 2023 and June 2024 P2 Summaries).
Two marks means two unique points
A 2-mark 'describe' needs two different points, not one reworded. Asked how the presence of others affects helping, 'fewer help in a crowd' then 'in a big group not many help' is one point twice. The second must differ: a second mechanism (pluralistic ignorance), or a consequence (help also arrives more slowly).
Examiners state a 2-mark describe requires two unique points and that the same point reworded is not credited (June 2023 P2 Q22).
Describe the difference needs a connective
Asked for the difference between a personal and a situational factor, most give two definitions side by side, leaving the difference only implied — one mark. The second mark needs a connective: a personal factor is about the bystander, whereas a situational factor is about the circumstances. The connective names the axis, and the axis earns the mark.
Describe-the-difference items are answered with two separate definitions worth one mark, with connectives such as whereas earning the second (June 2019 P1 Q6; June 2022 P1 Q7).
Bystander intervention ≠ bystander effect
Not the same idea. Bystander intervention is a bystander actually helping — the behaviour. The bystander effect is the finding that helping becomes less likely as more people are present. One is the act; the other a pattern. Keep 'intervention' for the helping and 'effect' for the crowd-size pattern.
Diffusion ≠ pluralistic ignorance
Both explain why a crowd lowers helping, by different routes. Diffusion of responsibility — each assumes somebody else will act, so no one feels responsible. Pluralistic ignorance — each sees the others doing nothing and concludes it is not really an emergency. Name both as separate mechanisms of the same factor.
Piliavin did not find a bystander effect
Piliavin et al (1969) did not find a bystander effect or diffusion of responsibility — help was quick and frequent. Safe uses: an ill victim was helped more than a drunk one (the cost of helping), and males helped more than females. It cannot support 'same-gender helping' — every victim was male. Use it as evidence against a bystander effect.
Examiners correct the claim that this study found a bystander effect or diffusion of responsibility (June 2019 P1 Q21a; still made June 2024 P1 Q25), and note a same-gender helping conclusion is invalid because all victims were male (June 2023 P1 Q19c).
Nobody helps in a crowd is too strong
Two over-statements. 'Nobody helps in a crowd' — the effect is about likelihood, not a law: help is less likely and slower but still happens. 'One factor decides it' — personal and situational factors act together and pull opposite ways, so the outcome depends on which is stronger. Both double as AO3: the effect is a tendency; the factors interact.
Scenario detail is the only AO2
The scenario detail is the only source of AO2 marks. Naming the person or repeating the stem does not count — tie a specific detail to a factor with a reason. AO3 cannot be awarded unless AO2 is present: apply first, evaluate second.
Reaching the 7-9 band on the Assess
The 9-mark Assess is AO1/AO2/AO3 in thirds; AO3 is the ceiling. Define the two families, apply the scenario detail, evaluate on validity, generalisability and objectivity, then give a balanced conclusion. Continuous prose — no bullet points.
A scenario plants one factor per family
Bystander scenarios usually plant one personal and one situational factor, often pulling opposite ways. Do not just list them: say which is likely to win here and why. Naming what would change the outcome proves you are using the scenario.
Match the command word
Read the command word first. State = name the factor only. Explain = factor plus direction and mechanism. Describe the difference = a comparative sentence with a connective. Assess = the 9-mark essay with balanced AO3 and a conclusion.
Bystander intervention — a person who is present at an emergency but not involved in it choosing to offer help to the person in need.
Bystander effect — the finding that the more other people are present, the less likely any one individual is to intervene, and the slower help arrives.
Diffusion of responsibility — when several bystanders are present, each one assumes somebody else will act, so responsibility is shared out until no individual feels personally responsible.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
