8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

1/16

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

2/16

Investigated the Social Inhibition of Helping (aka

the Bystander Effect)

General helping behavior in the context of non-emergency settings

Influence of stereotyped gender roles onhelping behavior across geographic locations

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

3/16

As the number of bystanders increases, thelikelihood that any given individual will render aiddecreases.

Robust finding in the field of social psychology (i.e.,It is well-replicated).

Most often examined in the context of emergencies

What explains this phenomenon?

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

4/16

Three underlying mechanisms are postulated:

Audience inhibition The bystander does not want to be embarrassed.

(It may not really be an emergency.)

Social Influence Ambiguous situations can engender pluralistic ignorance.

(People seek clarification by observing others reactions.)

Diffusion of responsibility

Bystanders share accountability for inaction/non-intervention.

(I dont have to feel as guilty because no one helped.)

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

5/16

Researchers predicted a main effect of sex on helping

behavior:

Males will help more and receive less help than females.

Geographic location would moderate the effect of gender on

helping behavior (i.e. There would be an interaction

between gender and location):

Males in the South will be more likely to help females.

Females in the South will be less likely to help males.

Greater numbers of bystanders would reduce the likelihood

of any individual helping Diffusion of responsibility

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

6/16

Design

2x2x3 factorial, observational, field study IV #1: Sex of experimenter (Male vs. Female)

IV #2: Sex of bystander (Male vs. Female)

IV #3: Geographic location (Three cities: Columbus, Ohio;Seattle Washington; Atlanta, Georgia)

Procedure 145 experimenters

91 men and 54 women

Dropped coins & pencils in elevators in public buildings

Recorded the number & gender of people present in theelevator and the number & gender of people who helped

Conducted 1,497 trials

4,813 participants

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

7/16

A strong main effect of sex of bystander

Male bystanders were more likely to help than females.

35% of male bystanders helped pick up dropped objects.

Only 20% female bystanders helped (p < .001).

An equally strong main effect of sex of experimenter.

Male experimenters were less likely to receive help.

Only 19% of bystanders helped male experimenters.

36% of bystanders helped female experimenters (p < .001).

8/9/2019 Sex, Group Size and Helping in Three Cities Presentation

8/16

In other words: Male victims (i.e. experimenters) received aid from oneor more bystanders during 43% of their trials.

Female victims received help from at least onebystander during 67% of their trials (F(1, ) = 130.74,p