Helping Behaviour Based on Gender, Race and Mobility

Helping Behaviour Based on Gender, Race and MobilityHELPING BEHAVIOUR BASED ON GENDER, hotfoot AND MOBILITYField study on evaluating helping behavior based on gender, race and mobilityRavindran RamkumarAbstractThis field study investigated the different factors which influence helping deportment in humans.The experi workforcet is focused on different factors ab step up(a) willingness to help others based on gender, race of the victim and mobility of the helper. The past studies provided support for the taste that indicating in that respect 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 ar influential as well. In conclusion, situation of the victim, dispositions based on gender and social factors in prioritizing the need argon all influential factors, but because of limitations to the studies this derriere only be appl icable in multicultural countries where race is not peculiar discrimination factor.Keywords Gender, racial discrimantion, mobility of the subjects, time pressure.IntroductionProsocial BehaviourProsocial behaviour stems from variant 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 impart 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 al peerless.This was explained using the conceit 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 st siter 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 person 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 resign dispositions of the individual. To deduce the consistency with the above mentioned this paper is presented by a field study.Method ParticipantThe actors in this field study were 40 Common pedestrians roaming almost 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 ProcedureIn 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, Im supposed to be meeting a friend but my phone has run out of battery. Would you mind i f 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.ResultInterpretationsThe 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 rummy 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 keep their helping despite of their hurry as they committed to help while being stationary (i.e. While waiting at the pedestrian crossing). No noted 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.LimitationsIn particular, that when the expand of the experiment are put into a more social frame, the appearance, approach and language of the confederate may have an influence in the purpose making of the participant, factors like the participants personality traits (demographic characteristics, personal motives and personality traits) situational constrai ns (the bystander is in are they in a hurry or do they have time to term of enlistment and help) environmental factors (Temperature, weather, crowd, culture) may also have critical influence on the helping behaviourDiscussionThe recorded data have been keenly spy 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 at that place was no race d istinction. 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 but 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.ConclusionConsistent with previous studies, we can conclude that male are more likely to help strangers than fem ale, and in sum, the people were more ready to offer help to a female than a male and the state of mobitity therefore have a significant difference in helping behaviour proving that people tend to help others in their happiness and relaxed state.ReferenceWade, Carole Tavris, Carol. (2000) Psychology one-sixth Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. UpperSaddle River, 2000.Espinosa M and Kovarik J (2015) Prosocial behaviour and gender. Front. Behav. Neurosci.988. doi10.3389/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 situationaland dispositional variables in helping behaviour Journal of record and Social Psychology, 1973, Vol. 27, No.1, 100-108.Nancy Eisenberg and capital of Minnesota A. Miller, (1987), The Relation of Em highroady to Prosocial andRelated Be haviors, 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) Doi10.1038/Nature02043Hans-Werner Bierhoff, (2002), Prosocial Behaviour, Taylor and Francis Group Psychologypress, ISBN 0-203-98942-2 Master e-book ISBN.Personality And Social Psychology, Altruism And Prosocial Behavior, John Wiley Sons,Inc. Chapter 19, Pg. 463Robert A.Baron, Nyla R. Branscombe, Donn Byrne Gopa Bhardwaj, (2009), SocialPsychology, 12th Edition, Pearson EducationJamie Lynch,, (1998) Effects of Gender and Sex role on Helping Behaviour, LehighUniversity.Paul D. Hastings, Kenneth H. Rubin, Laura Derose,(2005), Links Among Gender,Inhibition, And maternal(p) Socialization In The Development Of Prosocial Behavior, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 4.Roberts, William, And Sthayer, Janet.(1996), Empathy, Emotional Expressiveness, AndProsocial Behavior. Child Development, 1996,67 ,449-470David Myers,Prem Sahajpal,Pushpita Behera Social Psychology (English) 10th Edition,McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited(Words 1602)Appendix AObservations made on the fiels study with respet to the participants gender, age group and mobilityGroup members Jarinda, Ram, Beth, Devin, Fred.Trial No. 1Experimenter BethObserver Devin.Date conducted 20 Mar 2015Experiment expire 11.10amExperiment end 1220pmLocation Orchard Rd, pedestrian path outside Orchard Central Shopping Centre, 181 Orchard Road, S.238896.Appendix B cut across No. 2Experimenter FredrickObserver Jeranda Ramkumar.Date conducted 20 Mar 2015Experiment start 11.30amExperiment end 1250pmLocation Orchard Rd, pedestrian path outside Orchard Central Shopping Centre, 181 Orchard Road, S.238896.