Research in the laboratory has shown that people are more likely to help someone of a different race to themselves. Explain two ways the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) differs from this research. 1 2

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2021). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [4] 1 mark for identifying a difference; 1 mark for describing the element of the study supporting the difference; e.g.; Piliavin's study was not in a laboratory/controlled setting (1 mark: identify); as it took place in a subway car in New York (1 mark: describe); The different race helping was not seen as much in Piliavin (1 mark: identify); as people were more likely to help same race victim when drunk (1 mark: describe); 68% of spontaneous helpers of a white victim were white which is higher than racial distribution in the car (1 mark: describe)
2. [8] 4 marks available for the similarity, e.g. ethics, situational, controls, quantitative data; 4 marks available for the difference, e.g. setting, participants, use of a stooge.; Creditworthy points include ethics, situational, controls, quantitative data, setting, participants, use of a stooge.; Similarity; e.g. 4 marks; Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception. In the Milgram study, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks to a stranger who could not remember word pairs. In the Piliavin study, the participants were led to believe that the drunk or ill victim was actually in need of help.; e.g. 3 marks; Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception. In the Milgram study, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks to a complete stranger who could not remember word pairs.; e.g. 2 marks; Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception, as in both, participants never knew that the scenarios were fake.; e.g. 1 mark; Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies had ethical issues.; The similarity/difference is well explained using both studies as examples. (4 marks); The similarity/difference is well explained but only one study is used as an example OR both studies used briefly. (3 marks); The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at using at least one study as an example OR The similarity/difference is well explained but there is no study evidence. (2 marks); The similarity/difference is brief with no attempt at using studies as examples. (1 mark); No creditworthy material. (0 marks)