Helping Behaviors: The Effects of Priming

HELPING BEHAVIORS: THE EFFECTS OF PRIMING
Helping Behaviors: The Effects Of

Priming
Mimi Dao1
Co-partners and co-experimenters: Jazz Logan1, Amanda Stalker1
1
Department of Undergraduate Psychology, Azusa Pacific University
Abstract:
The effects of priming helping behaviors were tested using a control
group and experimental group. A total of 103 subjects participated: 43
students participated in the control group and 60 participated in the
experimental group. A helping behavior scale survey was used to
measure helping behaviors and a manipulation video was used for the
priming effect in the experimental group. The survey was distributed to
both the experimental group and the control group. However, only the
experimental group watched the manipulation video prior taking the
survey. Results show that the manipulation video created a positive
priming effect. Those in the experimental group were more led to help
others after watching the video compared to those in the control group
who did not watch the manipulation video. In addition, differences in
helping behaviors among genders, ethnicities, and class standings
were observed in the data results.
Introduction:
Helping Behaviors
Helping behaviors, also similarly known as prosocial behaviors, is
a simple act of helping others to assist them for their benefit. Social
psychologists have been, and still currently, researching what various
topics regarding helping behaviors such as: Why do people help
others? Why do some people help more than others? What influences
people to not help?
Helping others is a natural human instinct. There is this
expectation that by helping others, one would expect to be helped in
return later in the future (Aronson 2013). According to E. Aronson, T.
Wilson, and R. Akert, the two main motives for helping are empathy
and altruism (Aronson 2013). Empathy is the ability to feel the
emotions of another (Aronson 2013). Altruism is a characteristic where
one sacrifices their own well being for the benefit of the other (Aronson
2013). Those with a strong altruistic personality are found to have a
stronger drive to help (Aronson 2013). Though the social situation can
also influence ones desire to help (Aronson 2013).
Bibb Latane and John Darley, two social psychologists, studied
the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility in the case of Kitty
Genovese (Latane, Darley 1970). Roughly thirty-eight bystanders
witnessed the murder of Genovese. Because there were so many
people that saw the murder, there was a diffusion in responsibility.
Ones sense of responsibility diffuses the more witnesses there are.
This illustrates the bystander effect. No matter the emergency, the
more bystanders, the less likely someone will act. Both theories of
diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect influences helping
behaviors. Its common to have the mentality that someone will take
initiative. However, if everyone has that mentality, no one will end up
helping in the emergency. S. Garcia, K. Weaver, J. Darley, and G.

Moskowitz conducted a research to further investigate the implicit
bystander effect. They hypothesized that those that imagine being in a
group setting will reduce their willingness to help in a different task
(Garcia, Weaver, Darley, Moskowitz 2002). One of the goals is to test if
the mentality that one is in a crowd would prime one to be more
unaccountable (Garcia, Weaver, Darley, Moskowitz 2002). The results
proved the diffusion of responsibility phenomenon; the more people in
the crowd, the less responsible one feels to help (Garcia, Weaver,
Darley, Moskowitz 2002). Simply imagining the presence of others can
already prime one to feel unaccountable (Garcia, Weaver, Darley,
Moskowitz 2002).
Daryl Cameron and Barbara Fredrickson observed how attention
mindfulness and acceptance mindfulness influences the prediction of
prosocial engagement in the real world and how it would connect to
different variables of emotion (Cameron, Fredrickson, 2015). They
believed that present-focus attention would boost positive emotions
and nonjudgmental acceptance would decrease negative emotions
(Cameron, Fredrickson, 2015). Their study was the first to prove
mindfulness relates to helping behaviors (Cameron, Fredrickson, 2015).
Priming
Priming is an unconscious activation of particular memories

(Meyers 2013). The exposure of a stimulus can modify the response to
another stimulus (Goldstein 2015). Everyday settings, commercials,
noises, etc. can all be ways of unconsciously priming ones mindset. It
affects memory by manipulating retrieval cues. P. Andriopoulos and K.
Kafetsios tested the effects of schema activation on selective attention
(Andriopoulos, Kafetsios 2015). The goal of their research was to
investigate the effects of primed security on emotion-arousing
information and the activation interaction (Andriopoulos, Kafetsios
2015). Results found interaction in the emotion positive words
(Andriopoulos, Kafetsios 2015). Though there was no data that proved
the effect of priming, it still encourages that priming did still make an
impact (Andriopoulos, Kafetsios 2015).
Depending on the priming effect, it can also alter behaviors
(Meyers 2013); for example, helping behaviors. Two research studies
tested the effect of priming on prosocial behaviors. Leif D. Nelson
Michael I. Norton tested the effect on superhero priming and its impact
on helping behaviors (Nelson, Norton 2005). They believed that
superhero priming can make people believe they are more helpful and
predicted the priming effect will cause more helpful behaviors in the
future (Nelson, Norton 2005). They hypothesized that those that were
primed with the category superhero would volunteer twice as much as
those not primed (Nelson, Norton 2005). Also, they believed that the
priming effect could last to possibly many months after exposure to the
priming variable (Nelson, Norton 2005). The results from the research
proved their hypotheses were correct. Participants primed with
superhero volunteered twice as many hours to help than those that
were not primed (Nelson, Norton 2005). A priming effect can linger up
to two weeks after the introduction to the stimuli and can affect
helping behaviors in the future (Nelson, Norton 2005). Costanza
Scaffidi Abbate, Stefano Ruggieri, and Stefano Boca assessed real
helping behavior instead of the impacts of priming on helping
behaviors using the Scrambled Sentence Test (Abbate, Ruggieri, Boca
2013). Results of this study showed a direct relation between helping
and cognition that can be stimulated by priming. (Abbate, Ruggieri,
Boca 2013).
The purpose of this study is to test if the priming effect of a
media source can enhance ones drive to help others and reproduce
similar results of previous studies proving the positive effects of primed
helping behaviors.
Methods:
Participants:
A total of 103 Azusa Pacific University, a private Christian
university, students participated in the study. 81.7% female and 18.3%
male, an accurate representation of the gender ratio for APU students.
43 students participated in the control group and 60 participated in the

experimental group.
Tools:
The helping behavior scale by Gary Nickell was used to measure
helping behavior tendencies in our participants (Nickell, 1998). The
scale was then put through Google Forms to create an electronic
survey to distribute during the experiment with additional demographic
questions.
For the experimental group, a video of compilations from liberty mutual
commercials was used as the manipulation for the priming effect
(TheCorpfa, 2013). The video depicted random acts of kindness,
creating a ripple effect. One would perform an act of kindness to their
neighbor. The neighbor was inspired by the act of kindness they
received and decided to do the same for another person. So on and so
forth. All the actors in the video were diverse in age, gender, and
ethnicity that is favorable to an international audience.
Procedure:
Control group participants were recruited by sending the esurvey to close friends and acquaintances. Their instructions were to
just take the survey as truthfully as possible with no manipulation.
Experimental group participants were recruited by performing the
experiment to a total of 5 classes on the APU campus. Professors that

kindly offered their classes for the experiment received an email,
providing a link to the e-survey to distribute to their students. First, the
video was presented to the entire class. Then, the students would open
the link to take the e-survey immediately after the video ended.
Results:
After running the data through the ANOVA system, interesting
results from the experiment were observed. The data showed
differences between control group and experimental group, differences
in genders, differences in ethnicities, and differences between class
standings.
Difference between control group and experimental group

The video manipulation positively primed the participants in the
experimental group with a higher desire to help others compared to
the control group participants. Those in the experimental group (4.19, .
900) would be more willing to help out the elderly that is not part of
their family compared to the control group (3.88, .723), F(1,95)=
F(4.019), P= .048. Those in the experimental group (3.76, .953) try to
offer more help with any community or school activities compared to
the control group (3.45, .815), F(1,95)= F(4.686), P= .033. Those in the
experimental group(4.59, .495) find it more fulfilling assisting others in
need compared to the control group (4.40, .632), F(3,91)= F(9.775),

P= .002. Those in the experimental group (4.44, .726) find
volunteering to help someone more rewarding that those in the control
group (4.30, .687), F(3,91)= F(3.991), P= .049. Those in the
experimental group (4.19, .900) have a lesser degree of agreement
with the statement of helping people does more harm than good
because they come to rely on others and not themselves, than those in
the control group (3.95, .815) that have a stronger degree of
agreement, F(3,91)= F(6.258), P= 0.14.
Difference in genders
It was found that there is a difference in helping behaviors
between male and female. Females feel more fulfillment in helping
people than males. Females (4.29, .766) feel more happy than males
(3.79, .855) when doing volunteer work, F(1,95)= F(7.284), P=.008.
Females (4.14, .791) feel more led to help the elderly when they are
not part of the family. Males (3.74, .991) dont feel as responsible,
F(1,95)= F(3.78), P=.048. Males (3.74, .733) have a stronger belief
than females (4.18, .883) that helping people does more harm than
good because they come to rely on others and not themselves,
F(1,95)= F(3.78), P=.056.
The manipulation video presented in the experimental group, however,
had a significant effect on males. The males in the experimental group
10
(4.27, .786) feel more at peace with themselves when they help others
compared to the males in the control group (3.50, .926), F=(1,95)=
F(3.747), P= .056.
Difference in ethnicities
The difference in helping behaviors between Asians, Hispanics,
and Caucasians were tested as well. No clear differences between the
three ethnicities were found in the data results. However, the
manipulation video had an interesting effect on Asians. It is clear that
the video made a negative effect. Asians in the experimental group
(3.55, 1.128) had a stronger belief compared to Asians in the control
group (4.29, .756) that helping people does more harm than good
because they come to rely on others and not themselves, F(2,98)=
F(3.531), P=.033.
Difference between class standing in college

The helping behaviors of college freshmen, sophomores, juniors,
and seniors observed. There were no major differences between the
four groups, though fascinating effects on junior standing students
were present. The manipulation video showed no effect on juniors.
Juniors in the experimental group (4.50, .513) equally feel wonderful to
11
assist others in need as the juniors in the control group (4.50, .650),
F(3, 91)= F(2.895), P= .039. Both group of juniors had the same exact
average response.
Contrastingly, the manipulation video led to a negative effect on
juniors. When comparing the results of juniors in the control group
(4.07, .616) to the juniors in the experimental group (3.75, 1.164),
those that were primed with the video had a stronger belief that
helping people does more harm than good because they come to rely
on others and not themselves, F(3, 91)= F(3.058), P= .032.
Discussion and Conclusion:

Psychologists would predict priming can positively improve
helping behaviors. This present study explains the difference between
the manipulated group and controlled group in a very detailed manner.
The results gave concrete evidence to believe that those that were
manipulated by the video will have a stronger willingness to help,
proving our hypothesis is correct, unlike Andriopoulos and Kafetsios
study (Andriopoulos, Kafetsios 2015). It also proved how females have
a stronger altruistic tendency than males. Contrastingly to Nelsons
and Nortons study, our results did not measure the how long the
priming effect lasted after the exposure to the stimulus (Nelson, Norton
2005). This study backs up the theory that priming effects can
positively influence helping behaviors. The information provided by the
12
results of this experiment is important to this field of study for it

increases the power of the theorys reliability.
The demographics of our participants did not accurately
represent the population of humanity, making the external validity of
the experiment weak. Demand characteristics were present; exposing
what the study is testing which may cause participant bias. Similarly,
there is not a lot of control over self-reporting. Helping behavior can
have various operational definitions, making it a difficult construct to
measure. To minimize the amount of errors, future research on helping
behaviors should use implicit measures to get an more accurate
response to the stimulus while also avoiding report errors. To get a
more exact representation of a population, one should include
participants of various ages, religious backgrounds, and ethnicities.
Appendix:
INSTRUCTIONS: This instrument is designed to measure your
feelings, beliefs and behaviors concerning your interactions with
others. It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers. Please
answer the questions as honestly as possible. Using the scale below,
indicate your level of agreement or disagreement in the space which is
next to each statement.
1
2
3
4
5
Strong
Disagr
Undec
Agree
Strong
ly Disagree
ee
ided
ly Agree
13
___ 1. Helping others is usually a waste of time.

___ 2. When given the opportunity, I enjoy aiding others who are in
need.
___ 3. If possible, I would return lost money to the rightful owner.
___ 4. Helping friends and family is one of the great joys in life.
___ 5. I would avoid aiding someone in a medical emergency if I could.
___ 6. It feels wonderful to assist others in need.
___ 7. Volunteering to help someone is very rewarding.
___ 8. I dislike giving directions to strangers who are lost.
___ 9. Doing volunteer work makes me feel happy.
___10. I donate time or money to charities every month.
___11. Unless they are part of my family, helping the elderly isnt
my responsibility.
___12. Children should be taught about the importance of helping
others.
___13. I plan to donate my organs when I die with the hope that
they will help someone else live.
___14. I try to offer my help with any activities my community or
school groups are carrying out.
___15. I feel at peace with myself when I have helped others.
___16. If the person in front of me in the check-out line at a store
was a few cents short, I would pay the difference.
___17. I feel proud when I know that my generosity has benefited
a needy person.
___18. Helping people does more harm than good because they
come to rely on others and not themselves.
___19. I rarely contribute money to a worthy cause.
___20. Giving aid to the poor is the right thing to do.
Scoring:
14
Items 1, 5, 8, 11, 18, 19 are reverse scored. The scores for each
item are summed up to form an overall score, ranging from 20 to 100.
According to the author, a 60 is a neutral score.
References:
Abbate, C. S., Ruggieri, S., & Boca, S. (2013). Automatic Influences of
Priming on Prosocial Behavior. Europes Journal of Psychology
EJOP, 9(3), 479-492.
Andriopoulos, P., & Kafetsios, K. (2015). Priming the Secure Attachment
Schema: Effects on Emotion Information Processing. Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275715770_Priming_th
15
e_Secure_Attachment_Schema_Effects_on_Emotion_Information_
Processing
Aronson, E., Wilson, T, & Akert, R. (2013). Social Psychology, 8
th
ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Cameron, C. Daryl, and Barbara L. Fredrickson. "Mindfulness Facets
Predict Helping Behavior and Distinct Helping-Related Emotions."
Mindfulness 6.5 (2015): 1211-218. Web.
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002).
Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843-853.
Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Chapter 6: Long-Term Memory: Structure. In
Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday
experience (4th ed., pp. 150-177). New york: Cengage learning.
Latane, B., & Darley, J.M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesnt he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Myers, D. G. (2013). Chapter 8: Memory. In Psychology (10th ed., pp.
298-335). New York, NY: Worth.
Nelson, Leif D., and Norton, Michael I. (2005) "From Student to
Superhero: Situational Primes Shape Future Helping." Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 41, no. 4 (July 2005): 423430.
Nickell, G.(1998). The Helping Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at
106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association at San Francisco, August, 1998.

TheCorpfa (2013, January 24) Video that will change your life. I have
no words left. [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-HBl2TVtI
16

Helping Behaviors: The Effects of Priming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Helping Behaviors: The Effects of Priming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HELPING BEHAVIORS: THE EFFECTS OF PRIMING