Cynthia Griffin and Alexandra Cordato

Professor Benkendorf

SS396-Social Experiments

April 5, 2022

Helping Lab Report

Introduction

The concept of helping has been studied in psychology for decades, but many still

wonder where this fascination came from and why it’s so important to study. The tragic murder

of Kitty Genovese in 1964 in Queens resulted in this fascination. The term “the bystander effect”

was coined due to the witnesses of the crime who, out of the 39 people reported, only one called

the police because everyone else relied on someone else to intervene (Ruhl, Charlotte, 2021).

This incident brought up a major question for psychologists as well as the general public: why

did no one help?

Many factors can contribute to people not choosing to help, which can range from what a

person is wearing to what they are asking for help with. In Genovese’s case people might have

chosen not to help out of fear for their own safety. In a separate case study done on the “Effects

of Attractiveness and Nature of Request on Helping Behavior” the authors identified two

independent variables to test; the appearance of their confederates as well as the type of help they

were asking for. The confederates wore both fancier attire and poorer attire while asking

separately for directions to the thrift store and directions to the local tennis club. It was found

that people who were underdressed were provided the longest allotted time for help by strangers.

It was hypothesized by the authors that a stereotypically poorer person would need more help.

This made them think that was the reason for the extensive time spent in comparison to the well-
dressed participants, especially when the poorer dressed confederates asked for directions to the

thrift shop (Juhnke, Barmann, Vickery, Cunningham, Hohl, Smith, Quinones, 1987). While this

was all speculation of stereotypes on the part of the authors, its results and discussion fed into the

hypothesis regarding our own study of helping.

Another study done on the “Effects of Perceived Attractiveness and Feminine Orientation

on Helping Behavior” tested the results of helping with three independent variables: attractive v.

unattractive appearance, explanation v. no explanation for needing help, and feminist v.

traditional attire. The study found that regardless of appearance, providing a legitimate reason for

help will generally result in assistance. It was also found that attractive confederates dressed in

feminist attire received less help than their attractive but traditionally dressed counterparts

(Midge Wilson and John F. Dovidio, 1984). This illustrated not only that regardless of

appearance, the reason for helping was the most important factor, but also that the confederates

dressed in more lowkey outfits received more help. The results of this study as well as Juhnke et

al. study provided reasoning for our hypothesis on our own study.

Our experiment, like Juhnke et al. and Wilson & Dovidio tested in their studies,

examined the appearance of our confederates and the type of request on the help received. Before

conducting the experiment we hypothesized that confederates that were more underdressed–

specifically, wearing a hoodie–would receive more help than the confederates more properly

dressed because it would be assumed that the poorer appearing person would need more help,

something that was assumed in Juhnke et al. study as well. Overall, we theorized that

confederates wearing a blazer and providing a less legitimate reason for help–in our study this

request was the need to borrow a phone to check Instagram–would receive less help because they

would provide a less legitimate reason, a thought process that lined up with the results of both
studies we looked at. After conducting the study, but before examining all of the data collected,

our hypothesis ended up drastically changing. We ended up concluding that confederates

wearing less formal clothing–a hoodie–would receive less help than the person wearing a blazer

because they would be perceived as threatening. Although this newly adjusted hypothesis

contradicts the results of Juhnke et al. study, we think this has a lot to do with the location of the

experiments. Juhnke et al. study was conducted in Claremont, California, a college town with a

decently tight-knit community. Our study, conducted in Midtown Manhattan, is a vastly different

environment from their study, and we think contributed to people's hesitance in our study to

assist confederates wearing hoodies as opposed to blazers.

Methods

The experiment was conducted by multiple groups of confederates in different locations

on the streets near the Fashion Institute of Technology. The confederates were instructed to

approach individuals passing by on the street and request to use their phones. Specific genders,

races, ages, and other characteristics were not selected intentionally for this project, but the

selection for participants was not completely random due to the fact that confederates had the

choice to approach any individual they wanted to participate in this experiment. With that being

said, the confederates tried their best to select many different types of participants. The

experiment recorded 60 people approached by confederates.

The researching students were instructed to approach an individual passing by on the

street and ask to borrow their phone for one of two different reasons: either to call their mother

or to check their Instagram feed. One student was to approach the individual while the others in

the group were to watch and observe while recording whether or not the participant allowed the
student to borrow their phone. Half of the researchers wore black hoodies and half of the

researchers wore blazers. The students in both the hoodies and the blazers asked individuals to

borrow their phones for both reasons an equal amount of times. For example, if the confederate

in a hoodie asked 5 people to borrow their phone to call their mother, they also asked 5 people to

borrow their phone to check their Instagram feed; the same goes for the student dressed in a

blazer. The confederates were all instructed to give the same one line for requesting to borrow an

individual’s phone (“May I borrow your phone to call my mom?” or “May I borrow your phone

to check my Instagram?”). If the individual asked any questions about the study or was

suspicious, the researchers avoided giving a full explanation while conducting the study.

Results

Descriptives
Attire: (0 =
Reason: (0 = Help: (0 = No; 1 Blazer; 1 =
Mom; 1 = Insta) = Yes) Hoodie)

Mean 0.516666667 Mean 0.4 Mean 0.466666667

Standard Error 0.065058282 Standard Error 0.06377928 Standard Error 0.06494964

Median 1 Median 0 Median 0

Mode 1 Mode 0 Mode 0

Standard Standard Standard
Deviation 0.503939284 Deviation 0.494032182 Deviation 0.503097749

Sample Variance 0.253954802 Sample Variance 0.244067797 Sample Variance 0.253107345

Kurtosis -2.065331716 Kurtosis -1.888737649 Kurtosis -2.050735675

Skewness -0.068426415 Skewness 0.418791648 Skewness 0.137081745

Range 1 Range 1 Range 1

Minimum 0 Minimum 0 Minimum 0

Maximum 1 Maximum 1 Maximum 1

Sum 31 Sum 24 Sum 28

Count 60 Count 60 Count 60

31 out of 60 cases were asks to check 28 out of 60 cases were wearing a

Insta hoodie

The table above illustrates that overall 40% of the confederates received help, as seen in

the highlighted mean of the central orange column.

Reason-Help Correlation
Reason: (0 = Mom; 1 = Insta) Help: (0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Reason: (0 = Mom; 1 = Insta)

1

Help: (0 = No; 1 = Yes) -0.367627756 1

There is a negative relationship between the help and reason variables. As the reason

variable gets closer to 1–which is identified as asking to check Instagram in this table–the help

variable gets closer to 0–which is identified as not receiving help in this table. To summarize,

this means that when asking for help to call their mom, the confederates were more likely to
receive a “yes” response but when asking for help to check Instagram they were more likely to

receive a “no” response.

Attire-Help Correlation
Help: (0 = No; 1 = Yes) Attire: (0 = Blazer; 1 = Hoodie)

Help: (0 = No; 1 = Yes)

1

Attire: (0 = Blazer; 1 = Hoodie) -0.286410981 1

There is a negative relationship between the attire and help variables. As the attire

variable gets closer to 1–which is identified as wearing a hoodie in this table–the help variable

gets closer to 0–which is identified as not receiving help in this table. In short, when wearing a

hoodie a confederate was more likely to receive a “no” response to help and when wearing a

blazer a confederate was more likely to receive a “yes” response to help.

T-Test: Attire
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
 Blazer Hoodie

Mean
0.53125 0.25

Variance 0.257056452 0.194444444

Observations 32 28

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 58

t Stat 2.298124051

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.012589614

t Critical one-tail 1.671552762

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.025179228

t Critical two-tail 2.001717484

Comparing the mean of the results for receiving help for both the hoodie and blazer attire

illustrated that confederates wearing a blazer received over double the amount of help than

confederates wearing a hoodie. The p-value seen highlighted on the chart above shows that these
findings are statistically significant since a p-value of 0.05 and below is considered a significant

level, and our p-value is at 0.02.

T-Test: Reason
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Mom Insta

Mean
0.586206897 0.225806452

Variance 0.251231527 0.180645161

Observations 29 31

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 55

t Stat 2.993952054

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002060306

t Critical one-tail 1.673033965

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004120611

t Critical two-tail 2.004044783

Comparing the means of the helping results for the “mom” and Instagram reasons for

helping reveals that confederates providing the “mom” reason received almost triple the amount

of help when compared to confederates providing the Intagram reason. With a p-value of 0.004

being much lower than 0.05, the required maximum p-value to be considered statistically

significant.

Analysis of Variants Test: Reason-Attire

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Rows
10.46667 59 0.177401 0.55477 0.987369 1.539957

Columns 0.133333 1 0.133333 0.416961 0.520961 4.003983

Error 18.86667 59 0.319774

Total 29.46667 119

The p-value seen in the chart above is 0.5 (the p-value would have to be equal or less

than 0.05 in order to be considered statistically significant). In summary, this means that there is

not a significant interaction between the two independent variables: attire and reason. The two

variables did not affect each other in any meaningful ways.

Discussion

Based on the results, 40% of individuals helped confederates in being willing to lend

their phone regardless of the reason. This is quite surprising because previous replications of this

experiment have shown a lower percentage of people helping the researchers. According to the

results, there was a negative correlation between individuals helping the researchers and the

researchers asking to borrow their phone to check their Instagram. In other words, people were

more likely to help the researchers who needed to call their mom versus those who needed to

check their Instagram feed. Those who asked to borrow the individual’s phone to call their mom

were helped nearly triple the amount of times of those who asked to borrow the individual’s

phone to check their Instagram feed. Additionally, there was a negative correlation between

individuals helping the researchers and the researchers wearing a black hoodie. In other words,

the researchers wearing the hoodie were offered less help compared to the researchers wearing

the blazer. Those in the blazer were helped nearly double the amount of times of those in the

hoodie. The results show there is no correlation between what the researcher wore and the reason

the researcher asked to borrow an individual’s phone.

 In conclusion, the results show that those who asked to borrow a person’s phone to call

their mom while wearing a blazer were helped more than those who asked to check their

Instagram feed while wearing a hoodie. Our final hypothesis – those in a hoodie as well as those

who ask to check their Instagram feed will receive less help – was proven correct. There can be

many explanations for this finding. For example, the location the study was conducted in can

have an impact on how the individuals who participated acted towards the researchers. Our

particular experiment was done in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Thousands of people

are in a rush going to work, school, or to run errands and do not want to waste their time to be

stopped to lend their phone, especially to those asking to check their Instagram feed.

Additionally, stereotypically those in a black hoodie could look suspicious or untidy and may be

associated with wanting to commit a crime like mugging or assault. According to the Police

Department of New York’s 2021 Crime Statistics of the 10th Precinct, 1,012 acts of crime were

committed in the surrounding area of Chelsea, Manhattan (“Borough and Precinct Crime Stats”).

These include murder, rape, robbery, felionus assault, grand larceny, and grand larceny auto.

Social media and news stations often accentuate situations like these, so it may make people

assume the worst. Individuals may have wanted to avoid researchers who dressed in a hoodie for

this reason.

Researchers in blazers most likely looked more professional and clean compared to those

in a hoodie. Therefore, individuals were most likely more comfortable with lending their phone

to the researchers because of their important-looking appearance. People also lent their phones

more to those who asked to call their mom because they may have thought it was an emergency

or something extremely important. Individuals can sympathize with the researchers for asking to

call their moms because almost everyone has had a mother figure in their life. Maybe individuals
created certain scenarios in their heads to fill the gaps of the researcher’s request, such as

assuming they’re lost or their phone died. Being that the researchers were all young adults, age

could have affected if individuals offered help or not.

Overall, this experiment is important in studying “the bystander effect” mentioned earlier

in this report. Studying the way humans behave when confronted with a problem they can help

fix can give us a scientific reason as to why someone does or does not help in certain situations.

Based on the results of our experiment, it seems as though someone is more willing to help if the

situation needs immediate attention. This can be proven with the fact that more people were

willing to help those who asked to call their mom versus those who asked to check their

Instagram feed. In addition, fear of getting hurt or having bad consequences can lessen a

person’s desire to help. In Kitty Genovese’s case, people may have been afraid to get involved

out of fear. This can relate to how some people may have been hesitant to help the researchers

dressed in the hoodie due to being in a city with a higher crime rate. Lives could be saved with

the results of experiments like these by bringing to light the action people can take to help.

With all of that being said, there are some limitations to this research. For example, the

selection of participants for this experiment was not entirely random. The researchers were

allowed to choose whoever they wanted to approach. Therefore, some researchers may have an

unintentional bias of who they feel comfortable talking to (ie. may only approach women,

Caucasians, people who dress nicely, etc.). Additionally, the researchers were mostly female

students. This does not take into account how individuals may have reacted to more male

researchers; maybe more people would help the confederates or vice versa. This could

potentially be another category recorded in the experiment: the genders of both the researchers

and the individuals approached and how it correlates to the reason and the attire.
 Because there were multiple researchers approaching people, there could have been an

inconsistency with the way the researchers were perceived and, therefore, how it affected the

results of the experiment. Although everyone was given the same line to use to request help

(“May I borrow your phone to call my mom?” or “May I borrow your phone to check my

Instagram?”), everyone has a different voice and tone when they say it. Some people may

respond better than others based on how the line was delivered by the researcher. Additionally,

some individuals may have been more willing to help based on a researcher’s attractiveness.

Some individuals may have wanted to help more or less because they have a personal preference

on who they feel comfortable talking to.

In the future, this study should include a larger sample size as well as more specific

categories tested for correlation. For example, different genders, races, and ages of the

individuals being asked to help should be recorded and tested to see if there are any correlations

between attire and reason. The characteristics of the researchers approaching people should also

be recorded as to evaluate if certain features, races, and genders receive more or less help (ie.

blonde haired, African American, female, etc.). Maybe the study could also include other

simulated scenarios besides asking to use someone’s phone where a person needs help so as to

see how people react in a wide variety of situations. Many other changes and improvements can

be made on this study besides the ones mentioned above. It is interesting to see how this

experiment can evolve into helping us further understand human behavior and the connection to

helping others.
 Works Cited
“Borough and Precinct Crime Stats - NYPD.” NYC.gov, www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-

statistics/borough-and-precinct-crime-stats.page#manhattan. Accessed 5 Apr. 2022.

Juhnke, R., Barmann, B., Vickery, K., Cunningham, M., Hohl, J., Smith, E., & Quinones, J.

(1987). Effects of Attractiveness and Nature of Request on Helping Behavior. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 317-322. doi:10.1080/00224545.1987.9713710

Ruhl, C. (2021, April 20). Kitty genovese. Kitty Genovese | Simply Psychology. Retrieved April

3, 2022, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kitty-Genovese.html

Wilson, M., & Dovidio, J.F. (1984). Effects of Perceived Attractiveness and Feminist

Orientation on Helping Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(4), 415-420.

doi: