Research on the relationship between personality traits and helping behavior revealed that

Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". JPSP, 1973, 27, 100-108.

This is the famous seminary experiment about the Good Samaritans.

Previous studies have failed to find a link between personality traits and the likelihood of helping others in an emergency. However, changes in the # of people present did have a big effect on behavior.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is an interesting example. What possessed the priest and the Levite to pass by the injured man by the side of the road? Possibly they were in a hurry and were filled with busy, important thoughts. Maybe the Samaritan was in less of a hurry. Or maybe the virtues that the religious leaders espoused were not something they followed themselves (unlike the Samaritan).

The researchers had three hypotheses:
1. People thinking religious, "helping" thoughts would still be no more likely than others to offer assistance.
2. People in a hurry will be less likely to offer aid than others.
3. People who are religions in a Samaritan fashion will be more likely to help than those of a priest or Levite fashion. In other words, people who are religious for what it will gain them will be less likely than those who value religion for it's own value or are searching for meaning in life.

Procedure
The recruited seminary students for a study on religious education. First they completed personality questionnaires about their religion (to help evaluate hypothesis #3). Later they began experimental procedures in one building and then told to go to another building to continue. On the way they encountered a man slumped in an alleyway (the victims condition is unknown -- hurt, or drunk?).

They varied the amount of urgency they told the subjects before sending them to the other building, and the task they would do when they got there. One task was to prepare a talk about seminary jobs, and the other about the story of the Good Samaritan. In one condition they told the subject they were late for the next task, in the other they said they had a few minutes but they should head on over anyway.

In an alleyway they passed a man sitting slumped in doorway, who moaned and coughed twice as they walked by. They set up a scale of helping:
0=failed to notice victim as in need
1=perceived need but did not offer aid
2=did not stop but helped indirectly (told the aide on their arrival)
3=stopped and asked if victim needed help
4=after stopping, insisted on taking victim inside and then left him.
5=refused to leave victim, or insisted on taking him somewhere

After arrival at the 2nd research site, they had the subject give the talk and then answer a helping behavior questionnaire.

Results
The amount of "hurriness" induced in the subject had a major effect on helping behavior, but the task variable did not (even when the talk was about the Good Samaritan).

Overall 40% offered some help to the victim. In low hurry situations, 63% helped, medium hurry 45% and high hurry 10%. For helping-relevant message 53%, task relevant message 29%. There was no correlation between "religious types" and helping behavior. The only variable that showed some effect was "relgion as a quest". Of the people who helped, those who saw religion as a quest were less likely to offer substantial help than those who scored low on this statement. But later analysis revealed this may not be caused be real religious differences.

Conclusions
Ironically, a person in a hurry is less likely to help people, even if he is going to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Some literally stepped over the victim on their way to the next building!). The results seem to show that thinking about norms does not imply that one will act on them. Maybe that "ethics become a luxury as the speed of our daily lives increases". Or maybe peoples cognition was narrowed by the hurriedness and they failed to make the immediate connection of an emergency.

Many subjects who did not stop did appear aroused and anxious when the arrived at the second site. They were in a conflict between helping the victim and meeting the needs of the experimenter. Conflict rather than callousness can explain the failure to stop.

This is a preview. Log in to get access

Abstract

Three studies of everyday helping behavior are described. Study I reveals that most everyday helping occurs between friends, family members, and other familiar individuals; providing assistance to strangers is less common. Furthermore, much of the help given to familiar others is planned, whereas help given to strangers is almost always spontaneous. Study 2 describes the construction of an instrument to measure self-reports of helping. A multidimensional scaling analysis reveals three regions of helping: planned formal, planned informal, and spontaneous. Study 3 finds that characteristics of individuals, in general, are related more strongly to planned forms of helping than to spontaneous forms of helping. Social network variables also are found to be better predictors of self-reported helping behavior than are traditional personality variables.

Journal Information

Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) publishes theoretical and empirical papers on the link between the individual and society, including the study of the relations of individuals to one another, as well as to groups, collectivities and institutions. It also includes the study of intra-individual processes insofar as they substantially influence or are influenced by social structure and process. SPQ is genuinely interdisciplinary, publishing works by both sociologists and psychologists. Published quarterly in March, June, September and December.

Publisher Information

American Sociological Association Mission Statement: Serving Sociologists in Their Work Advancing Sociology as a Science and Profession Promoting the Contributions and Use of Sociology to Society The American Sociological Association (ASA), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to advancing sociology as a scientific discipline and profession serving the public good. With over 13,200 members, ASA encompasses sociologists who are faculty members at colleges and universities, researchers, practitioners, and students. About 20 percent of the members work in government, business, or non-profit organizations. As the national organization for sociologists, the American Sociological Association, through its Executive Office, is well positioned to provide a unique set of services to its members and to promote the vitality, visibility, and diversity of the discipline. Working at the national and international levels, the Association aims to articulate policy and impleme nt programs likely to have the broadest possible impact for sociology now and in the future.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Social Psychology Quarterly © 1990 American Sociological Association
Request Permissions

Which theory specifically predicts that we will be more helpful to our relatives than to others?

According to inclusive fitness theory, people are more willing to help those they are genetically related to because relatives share a kin altruism gene and are able to pass it along. We tested this theory by examining the effect of reproductive potential on altruism.

Which theory specifically predicts that we will be more altruistic toward our relatives than toward close friends?

INTRODUCTION. Hamilton's rule predicts that individuals should be more likely to altruistically help closer kin and likewise, be more likely to receive help from closer kin ( Hamilton 1964 ).

Which of the following statements is true about gender differences in helping behavior?

Which of the following is a true statement about differences in the helping behavior of men and women? Men are more likely to offer support that is direct, heroic, or otherwise consistent with the masculine gender role.

What is one of the reasons people assist each other in times of need?

They argue that people help each other because they want to gain as much as possible while losing as little as possible. The social responsibility norm also explains helping behavior. The social responsibility norm is a societal rule that tells people they should help others who need help even if doing so is costly.