Outline what is meant by individual and situational explanations of behaviour, using any examples. Do not refer to the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) in your answer.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2020). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. 1 mark = defining individual + 1 mark example (non-Piliavin)
2. 1 mark = defining situational + 1 mark example (non-Piliavin)
3. e.g.:
4. The individual explanation states that we behave because of our personality (1 mark). For example, a person wants to go snowboarding because they are an extravert (1 mark);
5. The situational explanation states that we behaviour because of the environment we find ourselves in / our surroundings / other people around us (1 mark). For example, in the Bandura study the children imitated the model later on because they had already witnessed/observed the model acting aggressively (so they did).
6. For each result:
7. Level Criteria Marks
8. 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 4
9. 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and there is a brief attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 3
10. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison, but there is no attempt at explanation or explanation is not about individual/situational; The result presented is not clear but there is an attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational. 2
11. 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or there is a basic attempt at explaining. 1
12. 0 No creditworthy answer. 0
13. e.g. individual:
14. The observers recorded comments from people about their helping or non-helping behaviour. Examples of these were ‘I wish I could help him but I am not strong enough' or 'It's for men to help'.
15. These are individual beliefs about the incident and can help to explain helping/non-helping behaviour. Each person had a different 'take' on the incident and decided what to do based on that.
16. e.g. situational:
17. Only on 73% of trials did people help a black drunk victim whereas for the other three conditions (e.g. white drunk victim), on 100% of trials was help given when no model as present.
18. Clearly, the situation that involved an interaction between a particular race and condition of victim stopped some people from helping. This situation had decreased helping behaviour in people in those trials.