Discuss by-standerism, with reference to one or more studies.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” asks candidates to offer a considered review of by-standerism.

Factors influencing by-standerism could include, but are not limited to:

• diffusion of responsibility
• pluralistic ignorance
• empathy
• norms and social roles
• cost-reward
• dispositional factors.

Relevant studies could include, but are not limited to:

• Latane and Darley’s (1968) study to investigate bystander intervention and diffusion of responsibility
• Pillavin et al.’s (1969) field experiment investigating variables in helping behaviour
• Oliner and Oliner’s (1988) study investigating dispositional factors and personal norms in helping holocaust victims
• Fischer et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies
• Soo Hoo’s (2009) study on by-standerism in school bullying
• Tamburri’s (2014) study on a by-standerism intervention programme targeting sexual assault
• Ploetner et al.’s (2015) study on bystander effect in young children in helping situations
• Manning and Levine’s (2007) Kitty Genovese archival case study.

Discussion could include but is not limited to:

• cognitive interpretation of the situation
• cultural and gender considerations
• a comparison of different explanations
• Manning and Collins’s (2007) discussion on the Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping which questioned the basis of bystander research.

Studies on prosocial behaviour should not be awarded credit for criterion C, use of research to support answer. However, if reference to prosocial behaviour is addressed as part of the discussion on by-standerism, credit can be awarded for criterion D, critical thinking.