The bystander effect: sex differences in helping behaviour in emergency and non-emergency situations literature review

Another factor that may influence the bystander effect is gender. In Darley & Latane´’s (1968) study, there was no difference between male and female bystander helping behaviour. However, according to Eagley and Crowley (1986), in general, men are more willing to help than women. Social-role theory of gender and helping says that the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturing and caring, especially to family and friends (Eagley & Crowley, 1986). Heroic helping involves the presence of others to achieve public recognition of the act. Thus, males may be more inclined to help others when bystanders are present in order to achieve a heroic status (Eagley & Crowley, 1986). Austen’s (1979) view differed. He said that women are more likely to help due to concerns relating to interpersonal relationships, empathy and guilt, while men are more likely to avoid helping because of costs involved with intervention.

The different helping styles of males and females make it difficult to predict how their responses will differ as bystanders depending on the urgency of the situation. Austen (1979) conducted a study that involved manipulating the urgency of the situation and observing bystander gender differences. The results showed that female bystanders are generally more willing to help than males. It also showed that the majority of female bystanders helped in both low and high urgency conditions, whereas the majority of males only provided help when in the high urgency condition. There are several limitations to many of these studies. Individuals should carefully consider each of these limitations before conducting further research.

References

Austen, W. (1979). Sex Differences in Bystander Intervention in a Theft. Journal of         Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2110-2120. doi: 10.1037/0022-        3514.37.11.2110.

Christensen, L. (2007) Experimental Methodology (10th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Darley, J. M., & Latane´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of         responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. doi:         .

Eagley, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic         Review of the Social Psychological Literature. The American Psychological Association,         100(3), 283-308. Retrieved from:         http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/201/Helping_Beh_articles/Eagly%20-        %20gender%20and%20helping%20behavior.pdf

Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006). The unresponsive bystander:         Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social         Psychology. 36, 267–278. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.297.

Levine, M., & Simon, C. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality         and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429-1439. doi: 10.1037/a0012634.

Shotland, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (1979). Emergencies: What Are They and Do They         Influence Bystanders to Intervene? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,         1822-1834. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1822.