Base on our perspectives, we came up with the following hypotheses:
H1: empathy makes helping behavior more possible
H2: empathy makes a greater extent of helping behavior
(C) METHODS adopted in our experiment
-
What have we done to test the validity of this perception?
The variables
The process of the experiment:
For the Test group,
- One of the two experimenters falls on the floor when approaching the target interviewees (30 in total).
- The slipped one invites the target to fill in the prepared questionnaire.
- Interviewees are asked to take a photo with the experimenters.
For the Control group,
The same experimenters as the test group simply approach the target interviewees and ask them to fill in the questionnaires
-
How did we deal with the conceivable error in the experiment?
The following measures were taken to ensure the effectiveness and consistency throughout the experiment:
1. Consistent demonstrations of the experimenters.
Standardized action and script were designed. Experimenters should kick their left leg with the right one, and at least one of their knees touched the floor. They fell right in front of the objects and showed painful expressions when asking the objects to complete the questionnaire. Pilot test for the DV were done before the experiment.
2. Elimination of the gender differences
Experimenters and interviewees should be the same in gender.
3. Elimination of the circumstantial differences
The experiment should be carried out at a same day, time and location.
-
How did we measure the occurrence and magnitude of helping?
The agreement of the interviewees in filling in the questionnaire is a measure testing the lower level of helping behaviors. The higher level is measured by whether the interviewees are willing to take a photo with our experimenters. Taking photo is regarded as a higher sacrifice as interviewees are risking the disclosure of the photos, which is their personal information.
(D) EXECUTION of our experiment
Our experiment was conducted on 7th, May, 2004, at 12:00 noon, at the Academic Concourse of the HKUST. Two of our male group-mates, Kenneth and Calvin were selected to be the experimenters. The Control experiment was firstly done and the Test experiment followed. Experimenters approached females who walked alone with her perceived age range from 18 to 25. Experimenters exercised standardized script and behavior. The experiment took around 3 hours to complete.
(E) FINDINGS of our experiment
-
What is the result for H1? (Re. Fig.1)
To summarize the data, 70% of the objects helped complete our questionnaire in the Test setting while in the control experiment, it was just 66.67%. It is shown that respondents are slightly more helpful in the Test setting when compared to the Control one. However, it is just a slight difference; the error term may already outweigh the difference, so it is not significant enough to deduce the usefulness of the test to affect object’s behavior. We concluded that there is a low correlation in the two variables, “Empathy” & “the possibility of Helping”.
-
What is the result for H2?(Re. Fig.2)
To test H2, respondents are requested to take a photo after filling in the questionnaire. To our surprise, there were 71.43% of the objects accepted our request, while 80% of them did so in the control one. The result, which means the weighting between the test and control group, is just the opposite to that of the experiment for H1.
(F) DISCUSSION- Do the findings justify our hypotheses?
Based on the findings obtained, there are just tiny differences between the test group and the control group. Such a tiny difference is not enough in justifying our hypotheses that sympathy really makes helping behavior more possible. What’s more, relatively speaking, there were slightly more people who agreed to take picture with our interviewers in the control group (80%) when compared with the test group (71%). Such finding contradicts with our hypothesis that sympathy makes a greater extent of helping behavior.
- How did we analyze the findings?
We tried to analyze our findings by thinking in two ways, that is whether the findings are really reflecting the reality or not.
- Refer to Fig.3, we hypothesized that there should be more helping in the test group. However findings showed that people seemed to be equally helpful in both situations. If we do not think the finding are reflecting the reality, we would conclude that there was an increase or a decrease in the helping behavior in the control group and the test group respectively that makes the convergent result of the two groups.
Base on this logic, we came up with 2 questions from our findings, they are
- Why did people help even without the falling of experimenter?
If we attribute the helping behavior in the test group to empathy, why are people seemed to be equally helpful even without the emotion of empathy? Are there any reasons enhancing people’s helping behaviors in the Control group setting? Below are some possible reasons proposed by our group.
-
The Venue of the survey conducted
We had chosen our campus to conduct the survey; most likely, schoolmates would naturally become our interviewees. From their point of view, it may be nothing but the fellowships that made them help, which means the sense of sympathy is not necessary.
-
The Day of the survey conducted
We conducted our survey on Friday afternoon; people are generally in holiday mood and are more willing to help even without empathy.
- Why didn’t people help even the experimenter fell in front of them?
-
Pre-exposure to our experiment
Some interviewees might have seen the experimenter falling down before. There are too many passer-bys in the Concourse that experimenters could not distinguish who might have witnessed the falling before and taken the injury as fake.
- Unexpected circumstances
Other groups of SOSC 195 came and conducted the researches at the time when we were doing the Test group experiment. People may feel annoyed when they see so many researchers at the same time. Such kind of ill-feeling may discourage people from helping even if they see someone falls in front of them.
- What did we see beyond the data?
Although the findings did not reflect significant differences between the two groups, there were obvious differences in terms of the eagerness to help as observed by our interviewers. According to our interviewers, Kenneth and Calvin, they generally tried more than two times inviting and persuading the person to fill in the questionnaire after approaching him/her for the control group; while the test group agreed to help immediately in general.
If both the errors and interviewers’ personal opinions mentioned above are justified, it is possible that the findings may not be reflecting the reality. Empathy may still be an effective means to trigger helping behavior.
2) If our findings are reflecting the reality, we would like to suggest a few practical consequences.
By applying our research in our daily lives, we try to give a few examples in this report. It is normal to see from media that beggars try very hard in appealing to be pathetic. Many of them were reported to borrow ill babies, or pretend disable with peg legs. If empathy does not trigger helping behavior, these beggars are using wrong strategies in doing so. How about those charity organizations? Posters with pop stars hugging malnourished children, or TV programs showing famous people visiting some developing countries are everywhere nowadays. The charity organizations, to a certain extent, is trying to arouse empathy in the public and thus leading to more donations. Again, if empathy is not an effective means, is it more efficient for those organizations to save the publication expenses and sponsor a few more needy children.
G. CONCLUSION
In our experiment, we linked “Falling down” with “Empathy, and tested whether “Empathy” would bring more “Helping Behavior”. Our findings showed that the result did not match with our expectation. The result obtained in testing H1 was even in contrary to our hypotheses.
Yet, we learned far beyond the research result itself.
-
What should we do to improve in doing experiment?
Throughout the experiment, we learnt that a successful experiment requires an in-depth design of experiment procedures, variables and possible error which makes the research results inaccurate. Those are things that we may underestimate their importance in the past.
If we got the chance to conduct this experiment again, we will choose a better venue, possibly not HKUST. Sai Kung may be a good place as people there are all strangers to us, and people there are generally relaxing, having time to help, it is more likely to test out the real helping behavior.
Apart from venue, we will increase the sample size to make our result more significant and accurate. We would probably try a sample size of 200.
-
What did we learn to work in a team?
Cooperation within the group, mutual support and involvement of group members are indispensable in making the success of a project. We have had many different opinions since we designed our DV and until we came up with this report. We shared but never argued. We are typical UST students, with piles of work and thousands of meetings. But we have worked closely no matter in doing the experiment, or consulting our professor and TA. Our group is definitely a cohesive one!
