Helping Behaviour Based on Gender, Race and Mobility

HELPING BEHAVIOUR BASED ON GENDER, RACE AND MOBILITY

Field study on evaluating helping behaviour based on gender, race and mobility

• Ravindran Ramkumar

Abstract

This field study investigated the different factors which influence helping behaviour in humans.

The experiment is focused on different factors about willingness to help others based on gender, race of the victim and mobility of the helper. The past studies provided support for the experiment that indicating there is a cause-effect relationship between the situational factors, time pressure and helping behaviour. As Piliavin et al. (1968) focused on all three factors and shows that dispositional factors such as gender are influential as well. In conclusion, situation of the victim, dispositions based on gender and social factors in prioritizing the need are all influential factors, but because of limitations to the studies this can only be applicable in multicultural countries where race is not peculiar discrimination factor.

Keywords: Gender, racial discrimantion, mobility of the subjects, time pressure.

Introduction

Prosocial Behaviour:

Prosocial behaviour stems from various motives and helps us attain various goals. For this reason, it is a common and an important aspect of our day-to-day social life. Why do people help? Multiple factors play in influencing whether, and to what extent, people engage in prosocial behaviour Many aspects of the situation and several personal factors are also determining. Prosocialality is a voluntary behaviour that is carried out to benefit of another individual (Bar-Tal, 1976; Mussen & Eisenberg-Berg, 1977). This study focuses on various factors of prosocial behaviour. To this end, we revisit several previous experiments, Wade, Carole & Tavris (2000) believed that bystanders should be less helpful in groups than alone.This was explained using the concept of diffusion of responsibility in which the outcome is diffused, or spread, among many people.Our hypothesis is about to analyse whether one sex is more prosocial than the other, as it is standard in the literature (Croson and Gneezy, 2009). Men are more likely to help a stranger in need than women (e.g. Bryan and Test, 1967; Ehlert et al., 1973; Gaertner and Bickman, 1971;. Graf and Riddle, 1972; Latane, 1970; Morgan, 1973) contrasty the evidence that female reacts more than men to social and emotional stimuli in many contexts (see e.g. Brody and Hall, 2008, or McManis et al., 2001, among many others). Secondly, whether people are readily come forth to help the same gender or the opposite. As the more people were put under time pressure, the less likely they were to help (Darley and Batson, 1973).Thirdly, we hypothesize testing helping behaviour with respect to mobility and state dispositions of the individual. To deduce the consistency with the above mentioned this paper is presented by a field study.

Method

Participant

The participants in this field study were 40 Common pedestrians roaming around Somerset Orchard Area, Singapore, about forenoon 11.30 AM on a Friday. To maintain standard uniformity the participants were randomly chosen from both genders (20 male and 20 female) who were either mobile or Stationary (20 Walking, 20 Sitting or Standing) ranging from young adults to adults. We also assigned two young adult confederates of both genders one native and one non-native person.

Materials and Procedure:

In this study, we have divided into two groups with one confederate of a gender and an observer with him/her, both the groups made the experiment at the same time and almost closer location, to ensure the results independent of time and location. The confederate showed a battery drained mobile phone to the participant to build their reputation and approached the participants requesting as “Excuse me, hi, I’m supposed to be meeting a friend but my phone has run out of battery. Would you mind if I borrowed your phone to make a quick call”. Then the observers out of the participants’ sight had recorded their responses on gender, responses or replies, age range and mobility categories.

Result

Interpretations

The results were as follows, among the total 40 participants, 20 were approached by each gender confederate, so it is necessary to examine the results individually first to draw a general result, when the confederate is a female the result ranges as 7 males of total 10 male (4 stationary) were readily offered the help while 6 female of 10 (4 stationary) had offered, in total 13 (65%) people helped. When the confederate is a male, 5 male out of 10 were ready to help (3 Stationary) and 4 females of 10 helped (3 Stationary), in total 9 people (45%).

In general 12 males out of 20 and 10 females of 20 lend their mobile phone. So 60% of male were tend to help a stranger while 50% of female does; of 12 male and 10 female with positive response 14 were stationary (7 male and 7 female, i.e. 58% of male and 70% of female) and 8 were moving (5 male and 3 female, i.e. 42% of male and 30% of female), and the participants expressed a range of responses for readily offering the help to offer help after an inquiry with some questions like “Is that a Local call?”, Some continued their helping despite of their hurry as they committed to help while being stationary (i.e. While waiting at the pedestrian crossing). No noteworthy differences were found in the responses with respect to nativity of the confederates as the experiment location Singapore is a multi-cultural country were discrimation according to race is widely curtailed.

Limitations:

In particular, that when the details of the experiment are put into a more “social frame”, the appearance, approach and language of the confederate may have an influence in the decision making of the participant, factors like the participants personality traits (demographic characteristics, personal motives and personality traits) situational constrains (the bystander is in; are they in a hurry or do they have time to stop and help) environmental factors (Temperature, weather, crowd, culture) may also have critical influence on the helping behaviour

Discussion

The recorded data have been keenly observed to deduce the results as follows. Since the gender and mobility based differences are minimum, in order to elicit subtle conclusions the percentage differences are to be evaluated. When the confederate is a female, 65% of people tend to help while 45% offered when the confederate is male from this we may resolve that people tend to help a female than a male because of the stereotyping dispositions that helping a female is safe and secure than a male as detailed in the study the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the race of victim (black or white) effect on responding, frequency of responding and the race of the helper, the study also shows that gender is a factor in helping behaviour, and that there was no race distinction. Gender and race are both dispositional factors (Piliavin et al, 1969). When a situation to help others arises 60% male were readily willing while 50% of female helped is consistent with our first hypothesis on whether one sex is more prosocial than the other. Men are more likely to help a stranger in need than women (e.g. Bryan and Test, 1967; Ehlert et al., 1973; Gaertner and Bickman, 1971;. Graf and Riddle, 1972; Latane, 1970; Morgan, 1973). The Comparitively majority of people, despite of gender was tending to give hand for a help when they were stationary than in a movement which is exactly consistent with the previous study that the more the people under time pressure, the less likely they were to help (Darley and Batson, 1973), But the hypothesized bias on helping behaviour according to gender (i.e. helping same or opposite gender) was not significantly detected.

Conclusion

Consistent with previous studies, we can conclude that male are more likely to help strangers than female, and in sum, the people were more ready to offer help to a female than a male and the state of mobitity indeed have a significant difference in helping behaviour proving that people tend to help others in their happiness and relaxed state.

Reference

Wade, Carole & Tavris, Carol. (2000) Psychology Sixth Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, 2000.

Espinosa M and Kovarik J (2015) Prosocial behaviour and gender. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9:88. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00088.

Alice H. Eagly and Maureen Crowley, (1986) Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature, Psychological Bulletin 1986, No.1. 100, No. 3,283-308.

John M Darley & C Daniel Batson, (1973), From Jerusalem to Jericho, A Study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, Vol. 27, No.1, 100-108.

Nancy Eisenberg and Paul A. Miller, (1987), The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Related Behaviors, Arizona State University, Psychological Bulletin 1987, Vol. 101, No. 1.91-119.

ErnstFehr And UrsFischbacher, (2003), The Nature Of Human Altruism, Nature 425, 785 – 791 (23 October 2003); Doi:10.1038/Nature02043

Hans-Werner Bierhoff, (2002), Prosocial Behaviour, Taylor and Francis Group Psychology press, ISBN 0-203-98942-2 Master e-book ISBN.

Personality And Social Psychology, Altruism And Prosocial Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Chapter 19, Pg. 463

Robert A.Baron, Nyla R. Branscombe, Donn Byrne & Gopa Bhardwaj, (2009), Social Psychology, 12^th Edition, Pearson Education

Jamie Lynch,, (1998) Effects of Gender and Sex role on Helping Behaviour, Lehigh University.

Paul D. Hastings, Kenneth H. Rubin, Laura Derose,(2005), Links Among Gender, Inhibition, And Parental Socialization In The Development Of Prosocial Behavior, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 4.

Roberts, William, And Sthayer, Janet.(1996), Empathy, Emotional Expressiveness, And Prosocial Behavior. Child Development, 1996,67,449-470

David Myers,Prem Sahajpal,Pushpita Behera; Social Psychology (English) 10th Edition, McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited

(Words – 1602)

Appendix A

Observations made on the fiels study with respet to the participants’ gender, age group and mobility

Group members: Jarinda, Ram, Beth, Devin, Fred.

Trial No. 1

Experimenter: Beth

Observer: Devin.

Date conducted: 20 Mar 2015

Experiment start: 11.10am

Experiment end: 12:20pm

Location: Orchard Rd, pedestrian path outside Orchard Central Shopping Centre, 181 Orchard Road, S.238896.

Appendix B

Trail No. 2

Experimenter: Fredrick

Observer: Jeranda & Ramkumar.

Date conducted: 20 Mar 2015

Experiment start: 11.30am

Experiment end: 12:50pm

Location: Orchard Rd, pedestrian path outside Orchard Central Shopping Centre, 181 Orchard Road, S.238896.