Running Head: Helping Behavior



Running Head: Helping Behavior

Gender Differences and the Effects

of Mood on Helping Behavior

Erin K. Arlien

Minnesota State University Moorhead

Abstract

This study tested the correlation between how mood and gender affects helping behavior. Sixty undergraduate students, 30 male and 30 female, were randomly assigned to three control groups and asked to fill out two separate questionnaires, a questionnaire on mood (PANAS) and a Helping Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ). Group 1 (n = 20) listened to positive music, group 2 (n = 20) listened to negative music, and group 3 (n=20) listened to neutral music. This was done to alter the mood of the participants to test the hypothesis that helping behavior depends partly on gender and partly on the mood of the helper. Results of the PANAS showed that there was a difference in mood and gender. However, there was no effect of mood and gender on HBQ.

[Title . . .]

In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her New York building while 38 witnesses did nothing (Manning, 2007). What makes people want to help, or in the case of Kitty Genovese, not help? Research has found that mood and gender have a large impact on whether or not an individual will display helping behaviors. Gender plays a major role on helping. Men are more likely to display heroic behaviors while women are generally more empathetic and sympathetic, that greatly affect their helping behaviors (Eagly, 1986). Both positive and negative moods affect one’s attitude toward helping (Berkowitz, 1987). Gender and mood are just two aspects among many that influence one’s likeliness to help.

Gender differences in helping

There has been a lot of research on the role gender plays on helping behavior over the years. Research has found that gender roles strongly impact whether or not a person will display helping behaviors. While female gender roles focus more on the needs of other, male gender roles tend to be more heroic behaviors. Women are perceived to be more kind and compassionate then men, as well as more likely to take care of the personal and emotional needs of others. Women tend to look at situations differently then men. Women believe they face more danger by helping then men saw themselves face. In general, women see situations more dangerous and life-threatening then men do. Women help more in situations in which there is a request, such as someone asking for help with directions or for spare change. Men on the other hand help more in situations of an assertive act such as a person stranded on the side of the road with a flat tire.

The male gender role suggest that men are suppose to be strong, competent and poised in the eyes of society, therefore it is likely that men may help just to maintain their self – image and not to lose face in the eyes of onlookers (Siem, 1986). Men are supposed to be big and powerful, and the pressures for men to act ‘masculine’ are so strong that men may not intervene at all for fear of appearing weak. If they appear to be indecisive or regret their decisions, others may see them as week, strongly affecting men’s willingness to help (Carlson, 2008).

Men who report themselves as being high in instrumental qualities may be especially concerned with preserving their self-image and avoiding the negative consequences. Men low in instrumental qualities are less likely to be suspicious and may be more likely to respond because the fear of appearing incompetent is greater than the fear of being embarrassed (Siem).

The primary difference between men and women’s helping behaviors is that men are more likely to decide that intervention is not required because of their greater fear of appearing fooling or gullible. Women are significantly more comfortable helping than men because they don’t feel they have to help (Siem, 1986). Men help more often than women in situations in which there is an audience, if there are other potential helpers around, or if help has some risk (Reysen, 2006). Men also tend to have more anger and less sympathy for the problems of others than do women (MacGeorge, 2003).

It is also important to look at how social status plays a role on helping. Because women are generally in a lower social status then men, they are expected to be compliant and unassertive which explains why they don’t offer their help until it has been asked. Men are typically in a higher social status, so they are expected to be assertive and aggressive which is why they are more likely to perform more heroic and dangerous acts of helping then women (Eagly, 1986).

Mood differences in helping

The second major focus of this paper is of course the affects of mood on helping behavior. Both negative and positive moods can influence a person’s willingness to help. Pleasant feeling frequently lead to an increased willingness to help because positive feelings generally increase people’s activity level. By helping others, a person could simply be trying to maintain their good mood, which is referred to as the ‘good maintenance hypothesis’, or they could be trying to look favorable in the eyes of society, otherwise known as the ‘social outlook hypothesis’ (Carlson, 1988). Helping behavior is more likely to occur when the person is in a good mood then in a bad mood because when a person is in a negative mood their altruism is low and they do not feel responsible for others (North, 2004).

On the other hand, positive moods could also decrease the likelihood of helping if the person does not want to risk ruining his or her good mood by helping others in distress. Overall, however, happy people are highly motivated to seek out positive reinforcements increasing their willingness to help (Carlson, 1988).

It is suggested that helping improves one’s mood greatly compared to those who do not help, but this mood change could merely be due to the interaction with another person and not necessarily to their helping behavior. In fact, some people who helped did not find their mood improved at all indicating that one’s mood may not be changed simply my helping other (Williamson, 1989).

Priming also affects one’s decision to help when in a good mood. When a person is in a good mood it causes them to see things in a more positive light. This causes a cue that temporarily increases a particular situation or stimuli. This process is called priming and it allows people in positive moods to perceive a situation in a more positive way (Carlson, 1988).

Looking at the other spectrum of mood, negative mood is also very influential in helping behavior. People that are in a bad mood may offer their help in order to boost their negative feelings and make them feel better (Berkowitz, 1987). Because negative feelings generally generate negative idea, anger, and aggression, most people that are in bad mood are significantly less like to offer their aid then those who are in a good mood (Berkowitz, 1987).

Three theoretical perspectives of negative mood on helping

There are three theoretical perspectives that can help explain why or how negative moods increase, or in some cases decreases, the likeliness of helping. The negative-state relief account explains that in an effort to reduce one’s bad feelings, they seek out mood-elevating behaviors (Carlson, 1987). Helping appears to be stimulated by the desire to escape a negative state of and the desire to attain or retain a positive state (Cummingham, 1980).

Attentional focus model also focuses on how negative mood affects helpfulness. Attentional focus suggests that if one’s attention is focused one’s attention is focused on others then it will increase helpfulness. But if one’s attention is focused mainly on oneself, it often decreases helpfulness. By focusing on the misfortunes of others, it sends an empathetic response to a person which increases the perceived reward values of giving aid and also increases helping behavior. At the same time, when one is thinking about others’ problems, they are very likely to consider others’ needs as well. This should increase helpfulness because they are thinking about other people’s needs instead of dwelling on their own problems (Carlson, 1987).

The third and final perspective that focuses on negative mood is objective self-awareness. Objective self-awareness is a state in which one focuses on oneself as the object of attention. By focusing on oneself, objective self-awareness may increase helpfulness while in a good mood because it may intensify the self-relevant pleasant feelings and thoughts that follow a good mood and promotes helping behaviors. A self-aware person may feel more strongly to perform social responsibilities in order to maintain a positive self-concept (Carlson, 1988). A person’s self – awareness or self concern can also have a strong role on helping behaviors. Self- awareness is a heightened sense of the self at a particular moment. It was once believed that a heightened sense of self – awareness would increase helpfulness, but later studies found that the exact opposite effects occurred. A heightened sense of self-awareness reduces the amount of help a person gives because they are so focused on themselves that they don’t pay attention to the needs of others around them (Gibbson, 1982).

Attributional approach

The attributional approach to helping behavior is also very important when looking at a persons’ willingness to help. It assumes that an individual’s decision to help others in need of help is determined by the perceived cause of the other person’s need. If the cause of the other person’s need is perceived as being controllable, then aid tends to be withheld because the person helping feels anger towards that person. If the person in need’s situation seems to be uncontrollable, then help is offered because the person helping has more sympathy for the person in need (Reisenzein, 1986).

Men and women may approach helping situations with different attributional tendencies. Men are typically use a more ‘justice’ form or moral or ethic reasoning where women use a more ‘care’ form. Men’s focus on justice rather than the caring method causes men to take on more responsibility for their decisions to help then do women (MacGeorge, 2003).

In conclusion, helping behavior is effected greatly by gender and mood. Gender differences differ greatly when it comes to helping behavior. Women generally help more often than men in most situations except for more life-threatening situations. They help more often in situations in which something is being asked of them, whereas men are more likely to help in dangerous situations and more assertive acts.

Mood affects helping behavior in ways in which people in a good mood help more often than people in bad moods. This is because a person in good moods wants to maintain their positive mood whereas a person in a bad mood generally has low energy, negative ideas or thoughts, and show more anger and aggression, lowering their willingness to help greatly. Negative mood is also affected by three theoretical perspectives, negative-state relief, attentional focus, and objective self-awareness. All these factors, along with the attributional approach theory which explains how a person’s decision to help is determined by whether they see the situations is controllable or uncontrollable, affects whether or not a person is going to help in any given situation.

Methods

Participants: A sample of college students (N=60), with equal number of males and females, participated in the study that were mostly from lower psychology classes at a small liberal arts university in the upper Midwest. Majority of participants are of traditional college age (18-22 years old), which were predominately Caucasian. Participants may or may not have earned extra credit for participating in the study if provided by their professor. All participants in this study were treated according to APA’s principles and guidelines.

Material: A PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) questionnaire that has 20 questions in which the participants rate their feelings/mood at the time using the likert scale in which 1=very slightly or not at all, 2=a little, 3=moderately, 4=quite a bit, and 5=extremely. Also, a basic helping behavior questionnaire (Romer, Gruder, & Lizzadro, 1986) that contains 23 real life situation questions in which the participants had to image themselves in the situation and then choose one of the 4 corresponding actions that best describes what they would do. Both questionnaires were given on white 8 1/2 X 10 inch sheet of paper along with a pencil to complete the task. Music that is negative, positive, or neutral was also presented to the participants. The positive music was “Coppelia” by Delibes, the neutral mood music was Debussy’s “Prelude l’ Après Midi d’un Faun”, and the negative mood music was Prokofiev’s “Russian under the Mongolian Yoke”. Music was chosen by a previous study on music’s affect on mood by Albersnagel, 1988 and Martin, 1990.

Procedures/Design: Participants were given a PANAS questionnaire that measures one’s feelings/mood at the time of the study, along with a basic helping behavior questionnaire that measures one’s likeliness to help. After completing the two questionnaires, participants were asked to sit back in their chair, close their eyes, and concentrate on the music. Participants will be randomly chosen to listen to positive, negative, or neutral music. After the two minutes are up, participants were then give then PANAS and helping behavior questionnaires again to see how their likeliness to help (Dependent Variable) changes as their mood changes (Independent Variable) and if there is a gender difference (I.V.). I used a 3 x 2 factoral design based on the three variables of mood (positive, negative, and neutral) and the gender of the participant (male/female). Participants were debriefed at the end of the study.

Results

As predicted PANAS scores changed depending on mood and gender, F (2, 38) = 3.624, p = .036, η2 = .160 (See Table 1). The major change was among females in the negative music group. However there was no effect of mood and gender on HBQ, F (2, 38) = 1.588, p = .217.

Table 1. PANAS scores by gender by group

| |gender |Group |Mean |Std. Deviation |N |

|PANAS1 |Female |Negative |73.2857 |11.82813 |7 |

| | |Neutral |67.2857 |5.31395 |7 |

| | |Positive |74.4286 |5.76938 |7 |

| | |Total |71.6667 |8.41031 |21 |

| |Males |Negative |73.1429 |9.75412 |7 |

| | |Neutral |70.4286 |8.01784 |7 |

| | |Positive |74.0000 |7.61577 |9 |

| | |Total |72.6522 |8.18318 |23 |

| |Total |Negative |73.2143 |10.41581 |14 |

| | |Neutral |68.8571 |6.73518 |14 |

| | |Positive |74.1875 |6.65551 |16 |

| | |Total |72.1818 |8.21024 |44 |

|PANAS2 |Female |Negative |68.2857 |4.85504 |7 |

| | |Neutral |71.8571 |7.90419 |7 |

| | |Positive |70.8571 |7.84068 |7 |

| | |Total |70.3333 |6.82886 |21 |

| |Males |Negative |74.7143 |7.60952 |7 |

| | |Neutral |68.5714 |10.58076 |7 |

| | |Positive |72.1111 |9.87983 |9 |

| | |Total |71.8261 |9.37430 |23 |

| |Total |Negative |71.5000 |6.98074 |14 |

| | |Neutral |70.2143 |9.13302 |14 |

| | |Positive |71.5625 |8.77852 |16 |

| | |Total |71.1136 |8.19874 |44 |

Discussion

The present data shows with the PANAS that there was a change in the mood of the participants depending on gender and which control group they were in. Results showed that there was a stronger change in mood among females in the negative group than any other group. This shows that females’ moods are more likely to change with negative stimulus than with positive stimulus and when compared to males.

The HBQ shows no effect of mood or gender on helping behavior. This may be because the music, which was supposed to alter the mood of the participants either negatively or positively, was just not strong enough. If I were to improvements on this research, I would change the mood stimulus from music to something stronger, such as a happy/sad story or happy/sad photos, since the music did not prove to be as effective as once thought.

On limitation I found with this study is that the participants had to fill out the same questionnaire twice. They may have just answered the questions the same the second time because they remembered the first questionnaire and not by how they really felt. To improve this problem, I would give them two separate questionnaires with similar, but different questions to help get a more accurate result.

References

Alderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1983. Self-concern and the willingness to be helpful. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46 (4), 293-301.

Berkowitz, L. (1987). Mood, self-esteem, and the willingness to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (4), 721-729.

Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., & Ronco, B. (1980). Regaining self-esteem through helping behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 105, 203-209.

Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and the bystander intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16 (1), 3-17.

Carlson, M., Charline, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211-229.

Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (1987). Explanation of the relation between negative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102 (1), 91-108.

Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 181-192.

Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283-308.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effects of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21 (3), 384-388.

Karakashian, L. M., Walker, M. I., Christopher, A. N., & Lucas, T. (2006). Fear of negative effects of helping behavior: The bystander effect revisited. North American Journal of Psychology, 8 (1), 13-32.

MacGeorge, E. L. (2003). Gender differences in attributions and emotions in helping contexts. Sex Roles, 48 (3/4), 175-182.

Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping. American Psychologist, 62 (6), 555-562.

North, A., Tarrant, M., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2004). The effects of music on helping behavior: A field study. Environment and Behavior, 36 (2), 266-275.

Reisenzen, R. (1986). A structural equation analysis of Weiner’s attribution-affect model of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (6), 1123-1133.

Reysen, S., & Ganz, E. (2006). Gender differences in helping in six U.S. cities. North American Journal of Psychology, 8 (1), 63-68.

Romer, D., Gruder, C. L., & Lizzadro, T. (1986). A person-situation approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1001-1012.

Siem, F. M., & Spencer, J. T. (1986). Gender – related traits and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 615-621.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing helping and desired relationship types as determinants of changes in mood and self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (5), 722-734.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download