2022, Set 1, Question 2 · Research Design · 7 points
2022 AP Psychology FRQ 2 (Set 1) answers
Bystanders, crowd size and helping, from a graph
Read a graph of passersby against helpers to judge a bystander hypothesis, name the right statistic and a confound risk, give the independent variable of a follow-up experiment, and tie three concepts to helping.
Skip to the worked answer and scoring (try the question first if you can)
This exam had two free-response questions to answer in 50 minutes, a Concept Application question and a Research Design question, each scored out of 7 points. The current exam has 2 free-response questions in 70 minutes. The skills these questions practice still count.
1 Read the question
The question is College Board's, from the 2022, Set 1 exam. It starts on page 3 of the PDF. College Board no longer posts this exam, so it opens from the copy of College Board's PDF that the Internet Archive saved on January 16, 2025.
2 Write your answer
Answer each part the way you would on the exam, in full sentences, with your work shown. Your writing saves as you type.
3 Score it
Score your answer against College Board's scoring guidelines, one point at a time. Give yourself a point only when your answer says what the guideline asks for.
Scoring guidelines (PDF, page 7) What the exam readers saw (Chief Reader report)
4 Worked answer and scoring
Here is how a response that earns full credit could read, part by part, and what College Board's scoring guidelines look for, put in our own words. Open a part once you have written your own answer to it. The scoring guidelines PDF above is the official word on every point.
Read the graph first: as the number of people walking by rises, the number who helped rises too. Dr. Germanotta predicted the opposite, so her hypothesis is not supported. Parts A and C are scored bullet by bullet; Part B turns the study into an experiment, where the number of people present is the variable she controls.
Part A 3 points
Model answer
Support: the data do not support her hypothesis. She predicted a negative relationship, with fewer people helping as more people walk by, but the graph shows a positive correlation: as the number of passersby rises, so does the number who help.
Statistic: a correlation coefficient, such as Pearson's r, which gives the strength of the relationship (and its direction) as a number from negative 1 to positive 1.
Third variable: a charity walk held nearby on some days could bring many more people onto the street and also put them in a helping frame of mind. That outside event would raise both the number walking by and the number who help, so the link between crowd size and helping could come from the event rather than from one variable causing the other.
What earns each point
- The data do not support the hypothesis, because the relationship is positive rather than negative. She predicted that more witnesses means less helping, a negative relationship. Rising together is the reverse. Saying "not supported" without describing the relationship does not earn it.
- A correlation coefficient, such as r. Strength of a relationship between two measured variables is given by the coefficient. Writing "a correlation" alone, or a test such as a t test or chi square, does not name that measure.
- Some variable outside the study could affect both the number walking by and the number who help, or stop her from concluding that one causes the other. The third variable problem is an unmeasured cause of both variables. A factor that touches only one of them, or just the phrase time of day, is a confound without that two way link.
Part B 1 point
Model answer
The independent variable is the number of people present during the staged emergency.
What earns the point
- The number of people present. In the experiment she sets how many people are present and measures helping. Helping is the dependent variable, and the staged emergency is the setting, the same for everyone.
Part C 3 points
Model answer
Internal locus of control: someone who believes their own actions can change what happens is more likely to step in when a stranger collapses, because they expect that calling for help or giving first aid will make a real difference.
Modeling: as a child, Maya watched her father pull over to help a driver change a flat tire. Years later, seeing a car stranded on the shoulder, she pulled over and helped the driver herself.
Approach avoidance conflict: a student sees someone drop an armful of groceries across a busy street. She wants to help and would feel good doing it, but she also dreads being late for an exam, so she stands torn over that one choice.
What earns each point
- A person who believes their efforts can make a difference is more likely to help (or less likely, if they believe their help will not matter). An internal locus is a belief that one's own actions shape outcomes. Feeling a duty to help, or helping because it feels good, is a different motive.
- A person observes helping (or not helping) and then carries out the same behavior. Modeling is learning by watching and then imitating. The example has to show the imitation actually happening, not just that someone might copy it later.
- A person weighs one decision about helping that has both an attractive side and an unattractive side. Approach avoidance is a pull toward and away from the same goal. Choosing between two good options is approach approach, a different conflict.
Common mistakes
From what the exam readers reported seeing in 2022 students' answers, in our words:
- Reading the graph as support for the hypothesis instead of evidence against it, which responses sometimes did.
- Describing the range of values on the graph but not naming a statistic that measures how strong the relationship is. Responses frequently failed to name it.
- Offering one or more confounding variables instead of a single unmeasured variable that drives both the number of people present and the number who helped. This was often the answer given.
- Naming the staged emergency as the independent variable instead of the number of people present, which responses often did.
- Treating internal locus of control as feeling obligated to help, or confusing it with intrinsic motivation. Responses did this frequently.
- For modeling, saying someone could copy a helping behavior someday rather than showing them performing it after watching. Responses often stopped there.
- Describing approach avoidance conflict as a choice between two options instead of the pros and cons of one choice, which responses frequently did.
Question, scoring guidelines and Chief Reader report: College Board, from the Internet Archive. The title, summary and worked answer are ours.