BHS 204

Running Head: Distractions form mobile phone use and helping behavior










Distractions from mobile phone use and helping behavior:
Do people look the other way?
Travis R.Taylor
California State Polytechnic University of Pomona




























Abstract
Research has shown that bystanders are often slow to react if to react at all to a situation that dose not appear to be an emergency when other bystanders are around. The study presented in this paper looks into the the amount of help received when someone appears to be busy and distracted talking on a mobile phone as opposed to a person whom appears to be unengaged in any mobile phone conversation. In the experimental group the confederate is talking on a mobile phone and drops papers to see if they will receive assistance in picking up papers. In the control group the confederate uses no mobile phone and drops papers to see if they will receive assistance.


































As a poor innocent woman falls victim to a violent murder, many observers stand in their apartment windows a safe enough distance away watching as a woman is stabbed repeatedly in the middle of the street. Not a single phone call to the police was recorded during the attack. This is the small story that turned big of Kitty Genovese who was violently murdered in New York City. Although this story started out as a simple murder investigation, it later grew as people were interviewed, and it was found that at least 38 people witnessed the brutal killing of Kitty Genovese.
According to Lane & Darley (1970) the bystander effect is when people are not likely to help, or are slow to help victims when other people are around. This is because more people are around a situation in which a victim may need assistance the diffusion of responsibility takes place, and the person may feel that it is the other people’s responsibility to help rather than theirs, When more people are found in this situation they are more likely to give reasons for not helping such as, “I didn’t want to get involved”.
As in the case of Kitty Genovese, the witnesses had many excuses for not helping, and in a lot of cases this can be attributed to the bystander effect. There are a variety of reasons in determining why some help and some do not. If the witnesses deemed the situations to be high danger due to the sight of young kitty being violently attacked; then conceivably they may have feared for their own lives and been less likely to help Kitty. The study of the bystander effect has been repeated many times to see if people are more likely to help, and if they are quicker to help when situations appear to be more dangerous. Fisher, Frey, Grietemeyer, and Pollozek (2005) found that when a participant was alone with low danger they were more likely to help the victim than if alone with high danger. In other trials, the participant was assigned to be in the company of a confederate. In this particular trial with the specific conditions the participant was more likely to help when the danger level was higher as opposed to lower even when placed with the confederate. In the low danger situation the bystander effect could have been displayed with the confederate around, but in the high danger situation the participant may have felt more adequate in helping with the aid of the confederate.
In other settings, a person who feels more adequate in assisting in a dilemma possibly will help more often than a person who does not feel very adequate to help in a particular situation. When Nelson and Norton (2005) performed their experiments they wanted to know if students were primed with superhero thoughts were they more willing to help as opposed to those manipulated to think about mundane thoughts of helping the had better results in helping behavior, as opposed to those given mundane thoughts and then being asked to help.
Research has found that when several people are around and a person needs assistance, but it is not a dangerous situation people are more likely to look the other way. In a study done by Thornberg (2007), he found that when a person was in need of help, and the situation was not dangerous there were man reasons behind why the bystander effect began to be displayed. In multiple interviews he found that if a leader was aware of the situation than this person should automatically take charge. Also if the person was not an acquaintance of the victim they felt less accountable to offer their assistance.
When it comes to day to day living, one might ask, “Would the typical person walking by offer their assistance if a fellow human being needed it”. Is this question strengthened when the typical person encounters someone who appears somewhat busy or distracted. In this study I looked at whether your typical coffee shop patron was more willing to help if the person needing the help appeared to be somewhat distracted or busy. I looked into studying this because when a human being appears to be busy or distracted one does not evoke the feeling of sympathy for this person, and in return people will be less willing to help, and slower to offer their assistance when made to feel this way for another human being. Thus, I predicted that people would be less willing and swift to help someone who is distracted or busy.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were 20 patrons at average coffee shops between 12 and 4p.m. on a Saturday afternoon. Excluded from the study were those patrons who were accompanied by one or more people, and/or had both their hands full. Prior to the study two locations were chosen to perform the trials with one hour designated to each group. The first hour was assigned to the study group where five people would be put through the trial followed by the next five to be in the control group. The same routine was repeated at the second location.
Materials
During the study the materials needed were a stack of 20 papers loosely held together and not stapled to ensure papers to go everywhere when dropped on the ground. The confederate used a mobile phone to appear to be distracted and busy. The confederate carried a coffee drink as well. The experimenters used stopwatches to record the time it took for patron to help if at all.
Procedure
The participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions based on the time of trial. First was the study group from 12-1p.m. Every other person to enter enter or exit the coffee shop was in the study group until five samples were collected. The same procedure was repeated for the control group, and trials were form 1-2p.m. The same routine was repeated at the second location starting with the study group from 2-3p.m. and the control group for 3-4p.m.
As the participants tried to enter or exit the coffee shop, the participants were met by the confederate. The study group met the confederate who was a young female college student, with brown hair, light skin, and dressed in shorts and a shirt, talking on a mobile phone and caring a cup of coffee, while attempting to carry papers. The control group met the same confederate without the mobile phone.
Two procedures were taken to ensure that the participants did not witness previous trials. The first was that two different predetermined coffee shop locations were used for trials, and second, only every other person was used to participate in my trial to allow for enough time to pass between trials.
In each condition trained observers sat at a nearby table as if they were having a study group, but they actually were recording the time it took for participants to assist the confederate. Helping was defined as the participant stopping what they were doing and assisting the confederate in picking up the papers. Timing began when the confederate dropped the paper and stopping when the participant began to help the confederate.