AP® Psychology 2025 FRQ Set 1: Detailed Solutions
Question 1: Article Analysis Question (AAQ)
This question requires you to analyze a single research study about the misinformation effect. You must answer each part in complete sentences, applying psychological terminology correctly.
Part A: Identify the research method used in the study.
- Identify the goal: The question asks for the specific research method.
- Scan the source for keywords: Look for terms like "randomly assigned," "conditions," "independent variable," and "dependent variable."
- Locate evidence: The text on page 4 states, "Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions..." This is the key indicator of an experiment, as it involves manipulating a variable (the amount of misinformation) and randomly assigning participants to control for confounding variables.
- Formulate the answer: State that the method is an experiment and briefly explain why, mentioning the manipulation of a variable and random assignment.
The research method used in this study was an experiment. This is evident because the researchers manipulated an independent variable, which was the amount of misinformation presented to participants, and they used random assignment to place participants into one of the three different conditions (low, medium, or high misinformation).
Part B: State the operational definition of high misinformation in the study.
- Identify the goal: The question asks for the operational definition of one specific condition. An operational definition is a precise, measurable, and concrete description of a variable.
- Locate the specific term: Find "High misinformation condition" in the source text.
- Extract the definition: Page 4 explicitly states, "High misinformation condition: 32 of 40 sentences (80% misleading information)." This is the exact, measurable way the researchers defined this condition.
- Formulate the answer: Write a complete sentence that presents this precise definition.
The operational definition of high misinformation in this study was the condition in which the summary provided to the participant contained 32 misleading sentences out of a total of 40 sentences, which constituted 80% misleading information.
Part C: Describe what the mean indicates for the percentage of correct responses between the high misinformation group and the low misinformation group.
- Identify the goal: Compare the mean percentages of correct responses for two specific groups and describe what that comparison shows.
- Find the data table: Locate the table on page 5, titled "Mean Percentages of Correct, Misled, and Incorrect Responses for Each Misinformation Condition."
- Extract the relevant numbers:
- High Misinformation Group (Correct): 63%
- Low Misinformation Group (Correct): 74%
- Compare and interpret: The mean for the low misinformation group (74%) is higher than the mean for the high misinformation group (63%). This indicates that participants who received less misinformation were more accurate in their memory of the video.
- Formulate the answer: State the comparison clearly, including the specific percentages, and explain the meaning of the difference. The mathematical comparison is $74\% > 63\%$.
The mean percentage of correct responses for the low misinformation group (74%) was higher than the mean percentage of correct responses for the high misinformation group (63%). This indicates that, on average, participants who were exposed to a smaller amount of misleading information were better able to correctly recall details from the original video compared to those exposed to a larger amount of misleading information.
Part D: Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.
- Identify the goal: Find evidence of an ethical guideline being followed in the study's procedure.
- Scan the "Method" section for ethical terms: Look for words like "consent," "debriefing," "confidentiality," "deception," etc.
- Locate evidence: Page 3 states, "After providing consent, participants viewed a 6.5-minute silent video..." This directly mentions informed consent. Another ethical consideration is the use of deception, as participants were told the summaries were from previous participants, which was not true. While deception was used, it's an ethical consideration, and the study would require a debriefing afterward (though it isn't explicitly mentioned, it's implied by APA guidelines). Consent is the most direct guideline mentioned.
- Formulate the answer: Identify the guideline and explain how it was applied in the study.
One ethical guideline applied by the researchers was informed consent. The "Method" section on page 3 explicitly states that participants provided consent before they began the study, meaning they agreed to participate after being informed about the general nature of the research.
(Alternative valid answer) Another ethical consideration was the use of deception. The researchers told participants that the summaries were written by previous participants, when in fact they were created by the researchers. To be fully ethical, this deception would require a thorough debriefing at the end of the study, where the true nature of the experiment is explained to the participants.
Part E: Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.
- Identify the goal: Evaluate the generalizability (external validity) of the study's results. This means assessing whether the findings can be applied to a wider population beyond the sample used.
- Examine the "Participants" section: Look at the sample's characteristics on page 3.
- Sample size: 127 students.
- Source: Recruited from a single large university's research participation system.
- Compensation: Course credit.
- Demographics: Mean age of 21.21, and a specific racial/ethnic breakdown (e.g., 65% Hispanic/Latino/a).
- Analyze for limitations: The sample is not representative of the general population. It consists only of university students, who may differ from the broader population in age, cognitive abilities, and education level. The specific demographic makeup of this university's student body also limits its applicability to other populations.
- Formulate the answer: State that the findings may not be highly generalizable. Support this claim with specific evidence from the "Participants" section.
The research findings may have limited generalizability to the broader population. The study's sample, as described on page 3, consisted of 127 students from a single large university who participated for course credit. This sample is not representative of the general population in terms of age (mean age = 21.21), educational background, and potentially other cognitive or social characteristics. For example, the findings from this group of primarily young, educated adults might not apply to children, older adults, or individuals with different educational levels. Therefore, the results on memory and misinformation may be specific to a university student population and cannot be confidently generalized to everyone.
Part F: Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the misinformation effect.
- Identify the goal: Connect a specific result from the study to the psychological concept of the misinformation effect. First, define the concept.
- Define the Misinformation Effect: This is the tendency for post-event information to interfere with the memory of the original event.
- Find supporting data: Look at the data table on page 5. Compare the "Misled" response type across the groups.
- Low Misinformation Group (Misled): 19%
- Medium Misinformation Group (Misled): 27%
- High Misinformation Group (Misled): 30%
- Analyze the data: As the amount of misinformation in the summary increased, the percentage of "Misled" answers also increased ($19\% < 27\% < 30\%$). This shows that participants were incorporating the false details from the summary into their memory of the event.
- Formulate the answer: State that the findings *support* the misinformation effect. Provide the specific numerical evidence from the table and explain how it demonstrates that post-event information corrupted the participants' original memories.
The research findings strongly support the misinformation effect. The misinformation effect occurs when a person's recall of an event is contaminated by misleading information they received after the event. This is demonstrated by the data in the table on page 5, which shows that as the amount of misleading information increased across the conditions, participants were more likely to choose the "Misled" answer. Specifically, only 19% of responses in the low misinformation group were misled, compared to 27% in the medium group and 30% in the high misinformation group. This clear trend shows that the false information from the summaries was incorporated into participants' memories, causing them to recall the event inaccurately, which is the very definition of the misinformation effect.
Question 2: Evidence-Based Question (EBQ)
This question asks you to develop an argument about whether the presence of others improves performance. You must use evidence from two different sources provided and connect each piece of evidence to a different psychological concept.
Part A: Propose a specific and defensible claim based in psychological science that responds to the question.
- Analyze the prompt: The core question is "whether the presence of others improves performance." An effective claim should not be a simple "yes" or "no."
- Synthesize the sources:
- Source 1 shows that an audience improves performance on simple tasks (putting on own shoes) but hinders it on difficult tasks (putting on unfamiliar clothes).
- Source 2 shows that the presence of others hinders performance on a difficult cognitive task (conflict trials) for baboons.
- Source 3 shows that being evaluated by an observer improves performance on a vigilance task.
- Formulate a nuanced claim: The evidence points to a conditional relationship. The effect of others depends on the task's difficulty and the nature of the social presence. A good claim will capture this complexity.
The presence of others does not universally improve performance; rather, its effect is contingent on the complexity of the task. While the presence of others tends to enhance performance on simple, well-learned tasks, it often impairs performance on complex or novel tasks that require significant cognitive effort.
Part B: (i) Support your claim using at least one piece of specific and relevant evidence from one of the sources. (ii) Explain how the evidence supports your claim using a psychological perspective, theory, concept, or research finding.
- Select a source: Source 1 provides a clear contrast that supports both parts of the claim. Let's use it here.
- Extract specific data: The graph on page 8 shows completion times. For the "Well-learned task," the "Alone" time is ~19 seconds, while the "Audience" time is ~16 seconds. For the "Difficult task," the "Alone" time is ~28 seconds, while the "Audience" time is ~32 seconds.
- Formulate the supporting sentence: State this finding clearly and cite the source.
- Choose a concept: This pattern is the classic definition of social facilitation. Robert Zajonc's theory is a perfect explanation.
- Explain the concept: Zajonc's theory posits that the presence of others increases physiological arousal. This arousal enhances the performance of dominant (easy, well-learned) responses but hinders the performance of non-dominant (difficult, novel) responses.
- Connect evidence to concept: Explain that putting on one's own shoes is a dominant response, so arousal from the audience improved performance (facilitation). Putting on the unfamiliar lab coat was a non-dominant response, so the same arousal impaired performance (inhibition).
(i) Evidence: According to the study in Source 1, the presence of an audience had differing effects based on task difficulty. Researchers found that participants were significantly faster at completing a simple, well-learned task (putting on their own shoes) when in the presence of an attentive audience compared to when they were alone. Conversely, for a new and difficult task (putting on and tying an unfamiliar lab coat), participants took significantly longer to complete it when an audience was present.
(ii) Psychological Connection: This evidence supports my claim through the concept of social facilitation. According to Robert Zajonc's theory, the presence of others increases an individual's physiological arousal. This arousal strengthens the "dominant response"—the behavior that is most likely in that situation. For a simple or well-learned task like putting on one's own shoes, the dominant response is the correct and efficient one, so arousal leads to improved performance. For a complex or novel task like handling an unfamiliar lab coat, the dominant response is likely to be incorrect or inefficient, so the increased arousal leads to impaired performance, also known as social inhibition. The findings in Source 1 perfectly illustrate this dual effect.
Part C: (i) Support your claim using an additional piece of specific and relevant evidence from a different source. (ii) Explain how the evidence supports your claim using a different psychological concept.
- Select a different source: Let's use Source 3. It also supports the claim but introduces a new element: evaluation.
- Extract specific data: The "Results and Discussion" on page 12 state that "Participants who completed the vigilance task alone detected significantly fewer correct number pairs than those who completed the task in the electronic observer condition or the evaluative observer condition."
- Formulate the supporting sentence: State this finding clearly, explaining that feeling evaluated improved performance on this attention-based task, and cite the source.
- Choose a *different* concept: We already used social facilitation. A great alternative is evaluation apprehension.
- Explain the concept: Evaluation apprehension is the concern or anxiety about being judged by others. This concern can be a powerful motivator, causing individuals to increase their effort on a task to avoid negative judgment, especially if the task is demanding but not overly complex.
- Connect evidence to concept: The vigilance task in Source 3 requires sustained attention, which is effortful. The presence of an "evaluative" or "electronic" observer, which participants believed was monitoring them, triggered evaluation apprehension. This concern about being judged motivated participants to try harder and focus more, leading to improved performance compared to when they were alone or with a non-attentive observer. This shows how the *perception* of being evaluated by others, a specific aspect of their presence, can improve performance on certain types of tasks.
(i) Evidence: Further support for the claim comes from Source 3, which examined performance on a vigilance task. The results showed that participants who believed they were being watched by an in-person "evaluative observer" or a camera ("electronic observer") detected significantly more correct targets than participants who performed the task alone. Interestingly, the mere presence of a non-evaluative observer did not produce this improvement, suggesting the key factor was the feeling of being monitored.
(ii) Psychological Connection: This evidence can be explained by the concept of evaluation apprehension, which is different from the general arousal of social facilitation. Evaluation apprehension is the theory that the presence of others only causes arousal and performance changes when the individual feels they are being judged. In Source 3, the vigilance task required sustained effort and attention. The conditions that explicitly created a sense of being evaluated (the note-taking assistant and the camera) led to better performance. This suggests that the participants' concern about being judged motivated them to exert more cognitive effort, thereby improving their performance on this challenging but manageable task.
AP® Psychology 2025 FRQ Set 2: Detailed Solutions
Question 1: Article Analysis Question (AAQ)
This question requires you to analyze a research study about dogs' reactions to human emotions. You must answer each part in complete sentences, applying psychological terminology correctly.
Part A: Identify the research method used in the study.
- Identify the goal: The question asks for the specific research method.
- Scan the "Method" section: Look for clues about the study's design. Page 3 explicitly states, "This is called a 'withinsubjects' design, which means that researchers observe each participant in every condition of the study."
- Analyze the design: The study involves manipulating an independent variable (the emotional display: owner crying, stranger crying, owner laughing, stranger laughing) and measuring a dependent variable (the dog's person-oriented behaviors). The use of manipulation and measurement confirms it's an experiment. The "within-subjects" design is a specific type of experiment.
- Formulate the answer: State that the method is an experiment, and specify that it's a within-subjects design, explaining what that means based on the text.
The research method used in this study was an experiment, specifically a within-subjects (or repeated-measures) design. This is evident because the researchers manipulated an independent variable—the type of emotional display and the person exhibiting it—and measured its effect on a dependent variable, which was the dog's person-oriented behaviors. The study is identified as a within-subjects design because every dog participated in all four experimental conditions.
Part B: State the operational definition of person-oriented dog behaviors.
- Identify the goal: Find the precise, measurable definition of "person-oriented dog behaviors."
- Locate the term in the source: The "Results and Discussion" section on page 4 explicitly defines this term.
- Extract the definition: The text states, "Person-oriented dog behaviors included looking at a person..., making contact with a person..., approaching a person, and vocalizing at a person..."
- Formulate the answer: List these specific, observable behaviors in a complete sentence as the operational definition.
The operational definition of person-oriented dog behaviors in this study was the set of specific, observable actions that included looking at a person, making physical contact with a person, approaching a person, and vocalizing (such as barking or whining) at a person.
Part C: Describe what the mean of the person-oriented behaviors indicates for the laughing trials as compared to the talking trials.
- Identify the goal: Compare the means for two specific conditions: laughing and talking.
- Find the data: Look at the bar graph on page 5 ("Mean of Person-Oriented Behaviors for Emotion Trials") and the accompanying text.
- Extract numerical/qualitative data: The bar for "Laughing" (mean ≈ 1.2) is slightly higher than the bar for "Talking" (mean ≈ 0.8). However, the text below the graph provides critical context: "...the means for laughing and talking did not significantly differ from each other."
- Interpret the finding: A non-significant difference means that, despite any small numerical variation, we cannot conclude that there is a real difference in the dogs' responses to these two conditions. The observed difference is likely due to random chance.
- Formulate the answer: State that although the means might appear slightly different on the graph, the researchers found no statistically significant difference, meaning the dogs' level of person-oriented behavior was essentially the same for both laughing and talking trials. In mathematical terms, while Mean(Laughing) > Mean(Talking), the difference was not statistically significant, often denoted as p > 0.05.
The graph on page 5 shows that the mean number of person-oriented behaviors for the laughing trials was slightly higher than for the talking trials. However, the accompanying text clarifies that this difference was not statistically significant. This indicates that, according to the study's analysis, there was no meaningful or reliable difference in how the dogs responded to people laughing versus people talking; their expression of person-oriented behaviors was considered equivalent in both conditions.
Part D: Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.
- Identify the goal: Find evidence of an ethical principle being followed.
- Scan the "Method" section (page 3) for ethical keywords: Look for terms like consent, debriefing, humane treatment, etc.
- Locate evidence: The text clearly states, "Each dog owner received and signed a consent form." This is informed consent for the human participants. For the animal participants, humane treatment is key. The study used positive reinforcement ("dogs received dog biscuits as compensation") and conducted the experiment in the dog's familiar home environment, which helps minimize stress.
- Formulate the answer: Identify the guideline and describe how it was implemented.
One ethical guideline applied by the researchers was informed consent. As stated in the "Method" section on page 3, the researchers obtained a signed consent form from each dog owner before their participation in the study.
(Alternative valid answer) Another ethical guideline applied was the humane treatment of animal subjects. This is shown by the researchers conducting the trials in the dogs' familiar home environment to minimize stress and by providing the dogs with biscuits as positive reinforcement for their participation.
Part E: Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.
- Identify the goal: Evaluate the study's generalizability (external validity).
- Examine the "Participants" section (page 3): Note the sample characteristics.
- Evidence: The sample consisted of only "16 dog and owner pairs." The recruitment was done "via email," which is a non-random sampling method. A specific list of breeds is also provided.
- Analyze for limitations: A sample size of N=16 is extremely small for making broad conclusions about all dogs. Volunteer sampling via email can also introduce bias (e.g., owners who participate may be more attentive or have a different relationship with their dogs than the general population of owners).
- Formulate the answer: Conclude that generalizability is low. Support this conclusion by citing the small sample size and the recruitment method as specific limitations.
The research findings have low generalizability and may not apply to the broader population of all dogs. The primary reason for this limitation, as detailed in the "Participants" section on page 3, is the very small sample size of only 16 dog and owner pairs. A conclusion drawn from such a small group cannot be confidently extended to millions of dogs of varying breeds, temperaments, and life experiences. Additionally, the participants were recruited via email, which is a form of volunteer sampling that could lead to a biased sample of owners who are potentially more engaged or different in some way from the average dog owner.
Part F: Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the idea that dogs' expressions of the person-oriented behaviors demonstrate stimulus discrimination in operant conditioning.
- Define the key term: First, understand **stimulus discrimination**. This is an operant conditioning principle where an organism learns to respond differently to various stimuli that are similar but not identical. For example, responding to a specific command ("sit") but not to a similar-sounding word ("spit").
- Apply it to the study: In this context, it would mean the dogs can tell the difference between the "crying" stimulus and the "laughing" or "talking" stimuli and choose to respond differently.
- Find supporting data: The bar graph and the text on page 5 show a large and significant difference. The mean for "Crying" (mean ≈ 3.2) is much higher than for "Laughing" (mean ≈ 1.2) or "Talking" (mean ≈ 0.8). Mathematically, Mean(Crying) >> Mean(Laughing/Talking), and this difference is statistically significant (p < 0.0011).
- Connect data to the concept: The dogs showed a strong, specific reaction (person-oriented behaviors) to the crying stimulus but a much weaker reaction to the other auditory stimuli. This is a clear demonstration of stimulus discrimination. They have discriminated the crying sound as a cue for a specific behavior (comforting), likely learned through a history of reinforcement (e.g., receiving affection after nuzzling a crying owner).
- Formulate the answer: State that the findings *support* stimulus discrimination. Provide the numerical evidence comparing the crying trials to the others and explain that this differential response is the definition of the concept.
The research findings strongly support the idea that dogs demonstrate stimulus discrimination. This concept refers to the ability to differentiate between a reinforced stimulus and other, non-reinforced stimuli. The data on page 5 show that the crying trials elicited a significantly higher mean number of person-oriented behaviors (approximately 3.2) compared to both the laughing and talking trials (approximately 1.2 and 0.8, respectively). The dogs responded robustly to the specific stimulus of crying but not to the other emotional sounds. This differential response indicates that the dogs have learned to discriminate the sound of crying as a unique cue that signals the potential for reinforcement (e.g., receiving comfort or affection from their owner), which is the essence of stimulus discrimination.
Question 2: Evidence-Based Question (EBQ)
This question asks you to develop an argument about a social condition that makes people more likely to help in an emergency. You must use evidence from two different sources provided and connect each piece of evidence to a different psychological concept.
Part A: Propose a specific and defensible claim based in psychological science that responds to the question.
- Analyze the prompt: The goal is to identify a "specific social condition that leads people to be more likely to help another person in an emergency."
- Synthesize the sources:
- Source 1 shows that as the number of perceived bystanders increases, the likelihood of helping *decreases*. This is the classic bystander effect.
- Source 2 finds the opposite: in real-life public conflicts, a higher number of people present was *positively* associated with intervention.
- Source 3 (a meta-analysis) helps resolve this conflict. It states that helping is *more* likely in dangerous situations (e.g., when a perpetrator is present) and when bystanders know each other. It also notes that helping is *less* likely in groups of three or more, echoing Source 1.
- Formulate a nuanced claim: The key differentiator seems to be the nature of the situation. A simple claim like "fewer people leads to more helping" is contradicted by Source 2. A better claim focuses on the variable that Source 3 highlights as critical.
- Claim: A person's likelihood of intervening in an emergency increases significantly when the situation is perceived as clearly and unambiguously dangerous, as this perceived danger can overcome the social psychological barriers that typically inhibit helping in the presence of others.
The likelihood that a person will help in an emergency is significantly influenced by their perception of the situation's danger; specifically, people are more likely to intervene when a situation is clearly and unambiguously dangerous, as this clarity helps to override the social forces that can otherwise inhibit bystander action.
Part B: (i) Support your claim using at least one piece of specific and relevant evidence from one of the sources. (ii) Explain how the evidence supports your claim using a psychological perspective, theory, concept, or research finding.
- Select a source: Source 3 is perfect because it directly addresses the variable of danger.
- Extract specific data: The "Results and Discussion" section of Source 3 explicitly states, "People who perceived a situation in which a person needed help as an emergency (more dangerous) were more likely to help than when the situation was perceived as a non-emergency." It also notes, "People witnessing a situation in which the perpetrator was present were more likely to help..."
- Formulate the supporting sentence: Cite these findings directly from the source.
- Choose a concept: My claim mentions overcoming social barriers. A key barrier is ambiguity. The concept of **pluralistic ignorance** fits perfectly.
- Explain the concept: Pluralistic ignorance is when individuals in a group look to others for cues on how to behave, and when no one acts (because they are all looking to each other), they incorrectly conclude that the situation is not an emergency.
- Connect evidence to concept: A clearly dangerous situation—like the ones described in Source 3 with a perpetrator—is not ambiguous. There is no need to look to others for interpretation; the danger is self-evident. This clarity shatters pluralistic ignorance, as individuals recognize the need for action on their own, making them more likely to help.
(i) Evidence: The meta-analysis in Source 3 provides direct support for this claim. The researchers found that "People who perceived a situation in which a person needed help as an emergency (more dangerous) were more likely to help than when the situation was perceived as a non-emergency." The source further reinforces this by stating that helping was more likely when a perpetrator was present, which is a clear indicator of a dangerous situation.
(ii) Psychological Connection: This evidence supports my claim by illustrating a condition that overcomes pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance often prevents helping in ambiguous situations because bystanders, seeing that no one else is reacting, wrongly assume the event is not a serious emergency. However, as Source 3 shows, a clearly dangerous situation is not ambiguous. The presence of a perpetrator or other obvious danger signs provides a clear, undeniable signal that help is needed, which short-circuits the need to rely on social cues for interpretation and thus breaks the paralysis of pluralistic ignorance, prompting individuals to act.
Part C: (i) Support your claim using an additional piece of specific and relevant evidence from a different source. (ii) Explain how the evidence supports your claim using a different psychological concept.
- Select a different source: Source 1, the classic Darley and Latané study, provides a powerful example of an inhibiting social condition.
- Extract specific data: The table on page 8 shows a strong negative correlation between the number of bystanders and the likelihood of helping. Specifically, 85% of participants helped when they believed they were the only bystander, but this dropped to only 31% when they believed four other bystanders were present. Mathematically, as Group Size ↑, Helping % ↓.
- Formulate the supporting sentence: State this finding, highlighting the dramatic decrease in helping as the number of perceived others increases.
- Choose a *different* concept: I used pluralistic ignorance for Part B. For Source 1, the most relevant and distinct concept is **diffusion of responsibility**.
- Explain the concept: Diffusion of responsibility is the phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. The responsibility is seen as shared among all onlookers.
- Connect evidence to concept: In the experiment in Source 1, when a participant believed they were alone with the victim, 100% of the responsibility to help rested on them. When they believed four others were present, they felt only 1/5th of the personal responsibility. This diffusion of responsibility directly explains why helping became less likely and slower as group size increased. It is a separate psychological mechanism from misinterpreting the situation's severity; it's about a diminished sense of personal obligation to be the one who acts.
(i) Evidence: The study in Source 1 demonstrates a social condition that powerfully *inhibits* helping, which helps justify my claim by showing what must be overcome. The results show that as the number of perceived bystanders increased, the likelihood of a participant helping decreased significantly. While 85% of participants who thought they were alone with the victim responded, only 31% of those who thought four others were present did so. This shows the powerful inhibiting effect of the presence of others in a situation not perceived as overtly and publicly dangerous.
(ii) Psychological Connection: This evidence can be explained by the concept of diffusion of responsibility, a different psychological principle than pluralistic ignorance. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when the presence of other people makes an individual feel less personally responsible for intervening. In Source 1, a lone bystander bears 100% of the responsibility to act. However, a bystander in a group of five perceives their personal responsibility as being divided among all members. This diminished sense of personal obligation, rather than a misinterpretation of the event itself, explains the dramatic decrease in helping behavior as the group size grows. Therefore, a situation must be compelling enough (e.g., extremely dangerous) to overcome this powerful tendency to assume someone else will handle it.