1. Running head: HELPING BEHAVIOR 1
The Effects of Cell Phone Use and the Bystander Effect on the Helping Behavior of Others
Travis Green
College of Charleston

2. 2
Abstract
Helping behavior is a focus for research in psychology. This study proposes certain implications
of factors that could affect an individual from acting or motivate an individual in acting on
helping behavior to another. Confederates performed an experiment in which they dropped a box
full of office supplies around a participant who was alone. Confederates were in any combination
of circumstances which were used to determine helping behavior by ranking in each situation.
Confederates were either conducting the experiment in the presence of bystander effect or not,
and/or using a cell phone or not. All the data was scored by the individuals helping behavior to
the confederate and then recorded. Helping behavior was significantly lowered when individuals
were under the bystander effect or using a cell phone. Likewise, helping behavior was
determined to be significantly higher when not in the presence of the bystander effect and the
confederate was not on a cell phone.

3. 3
The Effect of Cell Phone Use and the Bystander Effect on the Helping Behavior of Others
Throughout various studies, the helping or altruistic behaviors towards an individual in
need is variably dependent on environmental factors. In one study, it was found that when an
individual was presently on a cell phone, their behavior becomes more distracted (Thornton,
Faires, Robbins, Rollins 2014). According to Thornton, Faires Robbins, Rollins (2014) study,
cell phone use could have a negative effect on social interaction—this would include the
willingness of helping behavior in others. This is significant to this study, because this provides
insight into the willingness of others to help an individual who is or who is not on a cell phone
during a time when help may be needed. Another focus for this study that has been previously
addressed in a prior study, is that altruistic behavior from others tends to be age-related and
positively correlated with older adults, as compared to younger college students (Freund,
Blanchard-Fields 2014). Ecological concern for others seems to be more vested in older
communities; however, what factors influence this?
In the present study, efforts to uncover some of those factors is the goal. Another focus in
this study is the bystander effect—which is the term giving rise to the event that individuals are
less likely to come to assist others when there is a significant amount of people around
(Greitemeyer, Mugge 2015). In the Greitemeyer and Mugge (2015) study, it was found that
bystander effect actually reverses when the task demonstrating the need for helping behavior
appears to need the assistance of more than one helper (person). Under the bystander effect,
people assume that because other people are around, that another person will be more likely to
help an individual in need; therefore, justifying their reasoning for not stopping to help (Fishcer
et al. 2011). Furthermore, the emotions the person in need displays when needing assistance
plays a prosocial role in the helping behavior of others (Barasch, Levine, Berman, Small 2014).

4. 4
Therefore, a persons displayed emotion can have an effect on the willingness of others to
demonstrate prosocial behavior, such as helping behavior. After referencing to the previous
research, the behavior of an individual in need of helping behavior from another seems to have
an effect of the willingness for another to help. This study will provide some insight into whether
or not the use of a cell phone and/or the bystander effect determine an altruistic outcome of
another when it comes to someone in need of assistance. This study identifies with two probable
hypotheses. First, if a person is on a cell phone, then another individual will be less likely to help
them whereas if they are not on a cell phone. Second, if a person is surrounded by others, then
they are more likely to succumb to the bystander effect and not be as willing to help an
individual in need of assistance.
Methods
Participants
All participants in this study were college students between the ages of 18-25. A sample
of 96 participants was used for collecting data. No inducements were involved with the
participants during the experiment. All participants were chosen by every tenth male or female
who walked down George Street, and also chosen to generate half males and half females in this
study.
Design
The independent variables of this study are the bystander effect on the helping behavior
of others and the helping behavior of others while the confederate is using a cell phone. The
different levels of this study identified helping behavior in the presence of either bystander effect
or no bystander effect and/or cell phone use or no cell phone use.

5. 5
Measures
The materials used in this study was a cell phone, a box, 4 notebooks, 4 pencils, loose
index cards, and 1 pen. The dependent variable of this study was categorizing the helping
behavior of others while presented with a confederate who dropped a box full of office supplies
while demonstrating any mixed variable of cell phone use, no cell phone use, bystander effect,
no bystander effect. In Darley and Batson (1973), it was found that helping behavior can be
effected due to situational and personality variables particular to the subject. The helping
behavior of the participant was measured from 0-5 in describing their effort to help the
confederate in picking up the box materials spilled. Rating 1 was failure to notice, rating 2 was
perceived need but didn’t offer to help, rating 3 was stopped and asked if confederate needed
help, rating 4 was participant stopped and helped some with picking up the material, and rating 5
was stopped and completely helped the confederate pick up the spilled material.
Procedure
In this study, two confederates were used at two different intervals of time. A box was
utilized and office supplies were placed inside (four notebooks, four pencils, loose index cards,
and one pen). George Street on the College of Charleston campus was the selected area where
the study happened. For five separate occasions and five separately selected participants, the
confederate would pretend to trip over something on the sidewalk and then drop the boxes
contents all over the ground. Confederates were not allowed to interact thoroughly with
participants; they couldn’t ask for help when spilling the box material and could only say “thank
you” if a participant helped. If a participant asked the confederate what they were doing with the
box, the confederate said, “I’m moving rooms”. The first confederate walked down a street near
the College of Charleston as the recording confederate followed from across the other side of the
street or nearby unnoticed. Data was collected in regards to the participants helping behavior

6. 6
score when either the conditions of bystander effect or no bystander effect and/or cell phone use
or no cell phone use was in effect.
Results
SPSS software was used to perform student’s t-test. Helping behavior was significantly
lower when the confederate was using a cell phone (N = 52, M = 2.90, SD = 1.99), then when
they were not using a cell phone (N = 46, M = 3.85, SD = 1.73). t(96) = 2.48, p < .05. Helping
behavior changed when bystanders were present. The data signified that helping behavior was
lowered in the presence of a bystander. Helping behavior was significantly lower when the
bystander was present (N = 48, M = 2.79, SD = 2.03), then when the bystander was not present
(N = 50, M = 3.88, SD = 1.67). t(96) = 2.90, p < .05.
Discussion
The hypothesis of this study set out to determine helping behavior in individuals under
the event that another (confederate) was either/or not in the presence of the bystander effect
and/or with or without a cell phone in use. Going alongside Thornton, Faires, Robbins, and
Rollins (2014) study, cell phone use did in fact display a more distracted behavior to others. The
statistics performed in this study also concluded that helping behavior is significantly affected
when the confederate was on the cell phone. The bystander effect played another statistically
significant and imperative role in peoples helping behavior.
According to the results of this study, it was found that helping behavior is significantly
lowered when a bystander is present and when a confederate is using a cell phone. Helping
behavior was higher when a confederate wasn’t using a cell phone during the experiment. A few
limitations of this study to note are that this was an observational study conducted in a public
environment. There was not much ability for control; however, the data collected still supported

7. 7
the hypotheses. Even if this study were to try to be controlled, it would have been hard to collect
data from those individuals. Darley and Batson (1973) pointed out that time was a factor
contributing to one’s willingness to engage in helping behavior, and controlling a participants
daily schedule in a more controlled setting would not be easy. Furthermore, the general age
group targeted to determine helping behavior in this study was around the college student age. If
this study were to be done again, another researcher may consider using different age groups in
further determining helping behavior in the presence of the bystander effect and/or cell phone
use or no cell phone use. From there another study could perhaps compare helping behavior
between age groups, and if there is a difference in helping behavior between them. In Freund and
Blanchard-Fields (2014) study, it was found that there are age-related differences correlated to an
individual’s willingness to engage in helping behavior of another. This study is useful to
researchers in trying to better understand what motivates or deflects people from initiating or
acting on helping behavior. A more notable limitation of this study is the fact that it was
performed on a college campus, where it is likely that time confliction for college students
between classes could have contributed to the results. Another researcher may consider
conducting this experiment in another setting not so influenced by time.
In conclusion, the present data from this study defines limitations of helping behavior in
the presence or without the presence of bystander effect and/or cell phone usage. We
hypothesized that helping behavior would go down in the presence of the bystander effect and
when the person was using a cell phone during the experiment. The present studies statistics
supported what was hypothesized. The results found in this study state that helping behavior can
be negatively affected by the bystander effect and when a person is using or also using a cell
phone. Similarly, without the presence of the bystander effect and without the use of a cell

8. 8
phone, helping behavior became statistically higher. This study’s results can help researchers
further understand implications of helping behavior—situational and personality variable factors
which influence one’s willingness—and the attributes that effect one’s willingness to act.

9. 9
References
Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the
signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology, 107(3), 393-413. doi:10.1037/a0037207
Darley, J.M. & Batson, D.B. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and
dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
27(1), 100-108.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., & ...
Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander
intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin,
137(4), 517-537. doi:10.1037/a0023304
Freund, A. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2014). Age-related differences in altruism across
adulthood: Making personal financial gain versus contributing to the public good.
Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1125-1136. doi:10.1037/a0034491
Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2015). When bystanders increase rather than decrease
intentions to help. Social Psychology, 46(2), 116-119.
doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000215

10. 10
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone
may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology,
45(6), 479-488. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000216