THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HELPING BEHAVIOR

AND VERBAL IMMEDIACY

by

Autumn P. Edwards

A SENIOR THESIS

in

GENERAL STUDIES

Submitted to the General Studies Council in the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF GENERAL STUDIES

Approved

DR. KATHERINE GANNON Department of Psychology Co-Chair of Thesis Committee

:J_ DR. KARLf ~ Depa tment of Communlca lOn Studles Co-Chair of Thesis Committee

Accepted

DR. DALE DAVIS Director of General Studies

AUGUST 1999 ^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

llOt/^ Many individuals have been instrumental to the

^< i\l production of this thesis. First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis committee co-chairs.

Dr. Katherine Gannon and Dr. Karla Jensen, for their

enthusiasm, encouragement, and valuable insight.

Next, I would like to thank Dr. Dale Davis, Director of

General Studies, and Ms. Linda Gregston, the G ST Advisor,

for their guidance during this research project.

Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to my husband,

Chad Edwards, for his helpful comments at various stages of

this project and his unwavering support of my efforts.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. HELPING BEHAVIOR 3

Definition 3

Models of Helping Behavior 4 Latane'-Darley Model 4 Arousal-Cost-Reward Model 5 Current Research on Helping Behavior and Related Variables 7 Motives for Helping 6 Time Constraints 12 Ambiguity 13 Mood 14 Bystanders 16 Urban Environment 20 Sex 22 Race and Ethnicity 25 Attraction/Liking 27 Similarity 29 Relationship Between Helper and Victim ... 30 Responsibility Assignment 30 Personality Variables 31

Rationale for Researching Helping Behavior .... 32

III. VERBAL IMMEDIACY

Definition of Immediacy 33

Nonverbal Vs. Verbal Immediacy 34

Current Research on Verbal Immediacy and Related Variables 35 Student Learning 35 Student Motivation 37 Student Communication Apprehension 40 Teachers' Use of Humor 41 Teacher Effectiveness 42

111 student Willingness to Talk 42 Attitudes 44

Rationale for Researching Verbal Immediacy .... 45

IV. DISCUSSION

Areas of Overlap 46 Self-disclosure/Attraction 46 Nonverbal Immediacy 48

Future Research Areas 54

V. CONCLUSION 55

REFERENCES 56

IV CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Kitty Genovese was returning home after work in the early hours of an April morning. As she walked toward her apartment, she was stabbed viciously by a man armed with a

knife (Darley & Latane', 1968). Her screams got the

attention of several neighbors, many of whom turned on

lights. One man even yelled at the attacker to leave the woman alone. The man fled, only to return twice more after

things had quieted down. Because no one came to the aid of

Kitty Genovese or even called the police, the attacker

succeeded in killing her. After she was dead, the police

finally received a call. Police discovered that

thirty-eight people had witnessed some or all of the half- hour episode involving the murder of Kitty Genovese (Darley

& Latane', 1968).

The tragic death of Kitty Genovese prompted researchers to question why people sometimes render aid to a person in need of help and at other times fail to render aid. In the twenty years following the Genovese killing, over 1,000 studies on altruistic behavior were conducted (Dovidio,

1984). Altruism continues to be the focus of much research in the literature of social psychology. In addressing the importance of further research on altruism. Brewer and Crano

(1994) state: These distinctions are critical if we are intent on understanding the features that give rise to or retard helping in a specific context. If we know which motives are most likely to be aroused, we can better develop the specific forms of appeals that will prove most effective. At times, the stakes involved in receiving help are so great that knowing the right way to request it may be a matter of life or death, (p.300)

Therefore, it is clear that knowing how to communicate

effectively when in need of help is of great importance.

Effective communication is linked very strongly with

the construct of verbal immediacy (e.g., Anderson &

Anderson, 1987; Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea,

1996). Verbal immediacy is a situational variable that has

received a great deal of attention in the communication

studies literature, particularly in instructional

communication research (Frymier, 1994). Mehrabian (1971)

describes immediacy as a construct that allows people to

reduce the psychological distance that may exist between

themselves and others.

In order to consider the possibility that this psychological closeness would facilitate helping behavior between individuals, this paper will first discuss helping behavior, both as a general concept and in relation to

several variables. Second, verbal immediacy and some related variables will be examined. The remaining sections of the paper will discuss areas of overlap between helping behaviors and verbal immediacy, and briefly propose some areas for future research. CHAPTER II HELPING BEHAVIOR

This chapter will outline the basic models of helping behavior and examine current research on helping behavior and related variables.

Definition

Altruism has been defined a number of ways. Macaulay

and Berkowitz (1970) define altruism as "behavior carried

out to benefit another without anticipation of rewards from

external sources" (p. 3). According to Macaulay and

Berkowitz, this definition is preferable to broader

definitions of altruism as any behavior which benefits

another in need. Likewise, Macaulay and Berkowitz contend

that the definition of altruism as a "dispositional

component (not a specific form) of behavior which is

controlled by anticipation of its consequences for another

individual" is too specific (1970, p, 3). The authors maintain that empathy is necessary for altruism and that the helper must experience empathetic or vicarious pleasure, or

relief of distress, as a result of having acted on another's behalf. Consequently, for purposes of the current

literature review and proposed research, altruism can be defined as behavior that seeks to benefit another without the anticipation of awards from external sources. Models of Helping Behavior To help explain the process by which individuals either do or do not decide to help, several researchers have proposed models of helping behavior.

Latane'- Darley Model

Latane' and Darley (1970) put forth a general model

that describes the barriers which must be surmounted before

help is given. According to the Latane'-Darley model, an

individual must cross the following barriers before

extending help in an emergency:

(1) A potential helper must notice that a person is in need

of help; (2) He or she must interpret it as one that calls

for intervention; (3) The person must assume

responsibility for intervening; and, (4) The helper must

determine an appropriate response and decide to implement

it. According to Latane' and Darley (1970), a help

response may be short-circuited at almost any point in the help-giving process. For example, a potential helper might

surmount the first and second barriers, but fail to assume responsibility for helping, as occurs with diffusion of responsibility. Likewise, an individual may cross barriers one through three, but be unable to decide on an appropriate course of action and choose not to extend help. While

Latane' and Darley provide a good general prediction of when a bystander will or will not intervene on behalf of a person in need, some newer models more precisely predict when a person will transverse the steps in the original theory (Brewer & Crano, 1994).

Arousal-Cost-Reward Model

Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Clark's (1981, 1982) arousal-cost-reward model is one such theory. Arousal and the potential helper's perception of the costs and rewards associated with intervening are the two central components of this model. First, the model assumes that people become unpleasantly aroused when exposed to the suffering or distress of others, and actively seek ways to alleviate that arousal. The level of arousal one experiences is affected by the clarity and severity of the emergency at hand. For this reason, an individual witnessing a gruesome murder, with the accompanying sights and sounds, will experience greater magnitude of arousal than a person who hears the

screams, but does not see the effects.

There is much evidence for the importance of arousal in helping situations. Gaertner, Dovidio, and Johnson (1982) found that in an emergency, individuals with high arousal, as indicated by elevated heart rate, intervened more rapidly than their lower arousal counterparts. The greater the heart rate, the more quickly the subjects intervened.

However, the interpretation of the arousal also affects people's behavior in help-giving situations. Misinterpretation or misattribution of arousal has serious implications. Sterling and Gaertner (1984) found that subjects who had been aroused by doing push-ups intervened more rapidly in an unambiguous emergency (a loud crash accompanied by vocal cues indicating that the experimenter had been injured) than subjects who were not aroused. Apparently, the exercise-aroused participants attributed their arousal to the emergency situation. However, the opposite occurred in ambiguous emergency situations (a loud crash that was not followed by any vocal cues). The aroused subjects were more likely to attribute their state to the physical exercise; therefore, they rendered less help. Sterling and Gaertner conclude:

Apparently, arousal seems to motivate helping to the extent that it is reasonable for bystanders to attribute emergency generated arousal to the emergency or to misattribute residual arousal from some other event...to the emergency. (1984, p. 594)

The helper's estimate of the costs and rewards of helping is the second central component of the arousal-cost-reward model. According to the model, the potential helper must choose the least costly or most rewarding path of intervention. For example, Piliavin, et al. (1981) found that people are less likely to help intoxicated individuals than sober ones. The researchers interpret these finding in terms of the costs traditionally associated with approaching an intoxicated individual. Theoretically, people find it more difficult to predict the reactions of a drunk person, and tend to lack sympathy for drunks. Research also shows that injured individuals who are bleeding are less likely to receive help than those who are not bleeding (Brewer & Crano, 1994). Perhaps because the sight of blood makes most people uncomfortable and being exposed to blood can be hazardous, potential helpers estimate the costs of helping a bleeding person as higher than helping a non-bleeding counterpart.

Current Research on Helping Behavior

and Related Variables

A large body of social psychological literature is devoted to the investigation of helping behavior (Brewer &

Crano, 1994). Helping behavior has been studied alongside numerous constructs and situational variables. The

following section will examine motives for helping and the research on altruism and related variables.

Motives for Helping

In order to determine why people help at some times and fail to help at other times, researchers have put forth differing hypotheses which seek to explain people's motives for engaging in altruistic behavior.

Image repair. Cunningham, Steinberg, and Grev (1980) hypothesized that the helpful actions performed by people

7 who are experiencing bad mood or negative feelings as a result of that person's guilt about his or her own actions, can be explained in terms of "image repair." According to this theory, since it is damaging to self-esteem to view oneself as mean or abusive, altruistic acts are performed in

order to enhance feelings of self-worth.

Negative state relief. While the image repair

hypothesis does explain the results of much research on

helping behavior, it does not account for the findings that people who merely witness an injury to another person become more helpful (Brewer & Crano, 1994). An individual who

simply witnesses an emergency situation has no need to

repair his or her image. Such an individual did not cause

the pain or suffering of the victim, but still experiences

increased motivation to help. In order to explain this phenomenon, Cialdini, Darby & Vincent (1973) put forth the

negative-state relief hypothesis. According to this theory, witnessing the pain or suffering of others causes a negative

emotional state, which motivates individuals to act in a manner that alleviates the negative state. Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz &

Beaman, 1987) argue that:

Saddened subjects help for egoistic reasons: to relieve sadness in themselves rather than to relieve the victim's suffering.... Because helping contains a rewarding component for normally socialized adults..., it can be used instrumentally to restore mood. (p. 750) For this reason, the negative-state relief hypothesis predicts that if a pleasant emotional state is induced between the original negative state and the opportunity to help, an individual will be unmotivated to offer help.

Cialdini, et al. (1973) found that research participants who were exposed to an accident, instructed to rate a series of pictures, and then exposed to a pleasant surprise, offered

less help to an accomplice acting as a victim than did those who were not rewarded with the happy surprise. The rewarded

subjects were no longer in a negative state, so they felt no

need to alleviate it through helping. The non-rewarded

subjects remained in a negative state and felt motivated to

resolve it by offering help to another. Thus, the

negative-state relief hypothesis is an egocentrically based

explanation of helping, as it attributes altruism to the

internal state of the helper.

Empathetic joy hypothesis. Smith, Keating, and

Stotland (1989) proposed the empathetic joy hypothesis partly as a response to such egocentric explanations of

altruism. Smith, et al. (1989) define empathy as reacting emotionally because another person is experiencing or is about to experience an emotion. This model assumes that we enjoy the relief felt by others when we help them. While this can still be considered somewhat selfish, the motive

for helping is clearly different from those that solely focus on the helper's emotional state. Smith, et al. (1989) supported their hypothesis with the findings that experimental participants who thought they would witness the

results of their help response offered significantly greater

levels of help than those participants who did not think

they would see the results of their efforts. The

researchers argue that if people helped solely to alleviate

a negative-state, then learning the outcome of their help

should not matter.

Empathy-altruism model. Batson and his colleagues

(e.g., Batson, Batson, Griffit, Barrientos, Brandt,

Sprengelmeyer & Baylay, 1989) developed a model that

integrates the negative-state relief hypothesis and the

empathetic-joy hypothesis. Batson, et al. (1989) devised

the empathy-altruism model, which hypothesizes that witnessing another in need of help can stimulate either

distress or empathy. Distress at another's plight is an unpleasant state, which the witness is motivated to

alleviate. Empathy, on the other hand, focuses on the distress of the individual in need of help instead of the distress of the potential helper. Batson and Coke (1981) define empathy as "an emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone else" (p.

169) .

In order to test the empathy-altruism model and

Cialdini, et al.'s (1987) suggestion that the "motivation to help associated with empathetic emotion is directed toward

10 the egoistic goal of negative-state relief, not toward the altruistic goal of relieving the victim's distress" (p.

922), Batson and his colleagues (1989) manipulated empathy and the anticipation of mood enhancement. Findings indicated that empathy manipulation had a powerful effect on participants' willingness to volunteer to help.

Participants who had adopted an empathetic orientation toward an individual in need of help were more likely to agree to help the individual that those in whom empathy had not been fostered. The study also found that "contrary to the prediction of the negative-state relief model, there was no evidence that anticipated mood enhancement reduced the rate of helping by subjects reporting a predominance of empathy" (Cialdini, et al., 1987, p. 928). The proportion of helping among those subjects who anticipated mood enhancement and those who did not was exactly the same.

Batson, et al. (1989) conclude:

The results were those predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which claims that anticipated mood enhancement is not sufficient to reduce the helping of empathetically aroused individuals, because it does not permit them to reach the altruistic goal of relieving the victim's distress, (p. 931) However, other research conducted by Batson and his colleagues showed that participants who were made sad, rather than empathetic, were less likely to help a person in need if they anticipated positive mood enhancement (Brewer &

11 Crano, 1994). Thus, Batson's research demonstrates that both negative-state relief and empathy play a role in people's motivation for helping, but that the specific context determines whether distress or empathy will be experienced.

Time Constraints

Darley and Batson's (1973) research conducted with

students at the Princeton Theological Seminary shows that

time constraints can interfere with the normative demands

that usually help people decide when to interfere in an

emergency. Participants in the study were asked to prepare

a brief sermon on the subject of the Good Samaritan and

report to a laboratory in the next building. Participants

were then told that they had either plenty of time, very

little time to spare, or were already late for their

presentation. En route, participants encountered an

accomplice who was " sitting slumped in a doorway, head

down, eyes closed, not moving. As the seminarian went by,

the victim coughed twice and groaned, keeping his head down"

(p.104). Results showed that the greater the time pressure,

the less likely the participants were to help a person in

distress, despite the fact that the seminarians were about

to deliver a sermon about the Good Samaritan. Darley and

Batson concluded:

12 A person not in a hurry may stop and offer help to a person in distress. A person in a hurry is likely to keep going. Ironically, he is likely to keep going even if he is hurrying to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan, thus inadvertently confirming the point of the parable. (Indeed, on several occasions, a seminary student going to give his talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over the victim as he hurried on his way!), (p. 107)

Darley and Batson (1973) suggest that it is not the case that people in a hurry consciously decide to deny help.

Rather, they are either less likely to realize that a victim

is in need of aid, or they experience a conflict between

"stopping to help the victim and continuing on [their] way to meet the experimenter" (p. 108). It is therefore more

likely that the participants vacillated between two costly alternatives instead of choosing to withhold aid.

Ambiguity

Wilson (1980) found that in nonemergencies, helping behavior was significantly higher when ambiguity was low than when it was high. Subjects were exposed to a female victim who dropped a deck of computer cards in their paths.

Half of the subjects were assigned to a condition in which they were requested to "help pick up the cards, put them in order and deliver a note to a building on campus" (Wilson,

1980, p. 155). In the other condition, the same opportunities for help existed, but no direct requests were made. Wilson (1980) concludes that "a simple request for help can apparently increase one's willingness to aid

13 others. Or, conversely, not explicitly requesting help can inhibit helping" (p. 156). Wilson (1980) attributes these results to the notion that explicit requests decrease subjects' perceived ambiguity of the situation, thereby increasing their helping behavior, a finding which is consistent with the results of several emergency helping studies (e.g., Clark & Word, 1972).

Mood

Mood is another factor which influences the likelihood that help will be rendered or withheld. A substantial body of research shows that positive mood generally promotes helpfulness (Carlson, Charlin & Miller, 1988).

Specifically, Carlson, et al. posit:

A good mood will increase a person's helpfulness to the extent that the mood-elevating experience itself or other situational features increase either a) the salience of concerns related to obtaining positive reinforcement for oneself; or b) perceptions of the reward value of responding prosocially. (1988, p. 225)

Studies conducted by Alice Isen and her colleagues

(e.g., Isen & Levin, 1972) demonstrate that people who have received unexpected good fortune, resulting in a positive emotional affect, are far more likely to help than their counterparts whose mood was not enhanced. Isen and Levin

(1972) secretly deposited dimes in the coin return slots of telephones at a shopping mall. Results showed that individuals who received the good fortune of finding these

14 dimes were very likely to help a female accomplice who accidentally dropped a stack of papers in their paths.

Individuals who did not receive the unexpected good fortune were far less likely to render aid to the victim. In another experiment, Isen and Levin (1972) found that subjects who unexpectedly received cookies while participating in a study volunteered to be a confederate in a future study more often than did participants who were not given cookies. Hence, it appears that being in a good mood increases the likelihood of giving help in some situations.

Cunningham, Shaffer, Barbee, Wolff and Kelley (1990) found that mood also affects the type of helping behavior one is

likely to engage in. Cunningham, et al. found that subjects

in a positive mood were more likely to volunteer to discuss politics and social issues with peers (a social helping task) than others were. Subjects in the negative mood condition were far more likely to volunteer to rate the humor of jokes (a hedonistic task) than to volunteer for the

social helping task. In this study, positive mood was

induced by having subjects read aloud a series of statements designed to produce an elated mood. In the negative mood condition, subjects read aloud a series of items designed to

induce a depressed mood. The researchers attribute these

findings to the notion that "positive mood is associated with increased perception of the reward value of social activities, and of perceived self-efficacy for engaging in

15 those activities" (Cunningham, et al., 1990, p. 31). Likewise, negative mood is associated with personal, rather than social, concerns. However, Cunningham and Grev (1980) caution that the relationship between negative mood and helping is complex. Cunningham, et al. explain:

A negative emotional stimulus could cause the individual to regard helping as a way of relieving negative feelings, make the individual more concerned about self and social condemnations for not helping, or increase the empathy of the individual with the suffering of the potential beneficiary. Yet a negative stimulus might decrease helping by increasing the perceived cost or punishment inherent in helping or reduce the individual's interest in certain types of social rewards that could follow from helping. (1980, p. 190)

Therefore, in some instances, negative feelings such as

guilt can facilitate helping and, in others, negative mood

may inhibit helping.

Bystanders

The murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City in the 1960's

set into motion many theories and studies on the effects of

the presence of bystanders on helping behavior (Brewer &

Crano, 1994). Darley and Latane' (1968) proposed the

possibility, that contrary to the saying, "There is safety

in numbers," the presence of so many witnesses may have

acted to decrease Kitty Genovese's chances of being helped.

To help explain this, Darley and Latane' (1968) use the

16 terms "diffusion of responsibility" and "pluralistic ignorance." This section explores these two concepts and examines some of the research which gives them credence.

Diffusion of Responsibility. Darley and Latane' use the term diffusion of responsibility to discuss the idea that as the number of witnesses to an emergency increases, each individual's feelings of personal responsibility for helping the victim decrease. According to this hypothesis, an individual who is the only witness to an emergency will be under extreme pressure to offer help. Darley and Latane'

(1968) suggest that "when only one bystander is present in an emergency, if help is to come, it must come from him...[for] any pressure to intervene focuses uniquely on him" (p. 377). However, an individual witnessing an emergency from within a crowd will feel much less motivation to intervene because the pressures to intervene are shared among all onlookers and are not unique to anyone. In addition to diffusion of responsibility, Darley and Latane' propose that potential blame may be diffused as "under circumstances of group responsibility for a punishable act, the punishment or blame that accrues to any one individual is often slight or nonexistent" (1968, p. 378). Finally,

Latane' and Darley (1968) argue that if, in an emergency, others are known to be present, but cannot be closely observed, bystanders may fail to intervene on the basis that they assume others have already taken action to aid the

17 victim. The researchers note that many of the onlookers of the Kitty Genovese murder told police that they assumed someone else must have already called for help.

Pluralistic Ignorance. Latane' and Darley (1970) coined the term pluralistic ignorance to describe a state of uncertainty that occurs in an emergency, in which people use the actions of others to gauge the appropriate behavior for themselves. The researchers propose that perhaps the reason many people can witness another in distress and fail to

intervene is that the state of confusion produces an environment in which everyone is looking to everyone else

for an appropriate reaction. Latane' and Darley (1968)

state:

It has often been recognized...that a crowd can cause contagion of panic, leading each person in the crowd to overreact to an emergency to the detriment of everyone's welfare. What is implied here is that a crowd can also force inaction on its members. It can suggest, implicitly, but strongly, by its passive behavior, that an event is not to be reacted to as an emergency, and it can make any individual uncomfortably aware of what a fool he will look for behaving as if it is. (p. 217)

Research. In order to further examine these ideas,

Darley and Latane' (1968) conducted several experiments

designed to demonstrate the effect of the size of bystander

groups in an emergency. In one study, participants were

brought to a laboratory and assigned to individual

cubicles. Experimental conditions ranged from two to five

individuals taking part in a conversation. A tape-recorded

18 accomplice spoke about his occasional tendency to experience seizures when under pressure. Some time later, the accomplice apparently began experiencing such a seizure and asking for help. Results showed that individuals who believed that they alone knew of the other person's distress were far more likely to offer aid to the victim than participants who believed two or more others were also aware of the situation. Eighty-five percent of the subjects who thought the were alone reported the seizure quickly, while only thirty-one percent of those who thought four others were present did so (Darley & Latane', 1968). In addition, the response time before helping increased with larger bystander groups.

Darley and Latane' suggest that nonintervening bystanders did not choose not to respond; rather, they vacillated between two negative alternatives.

On the one hand, subjects worried about the guilt and shame they would feel if they did not help the person in distress. On the other hand, they were concerned not to make fools of themselves by overreacting, not to ruin the ongoing experiment by leaving their intercom, and not to destroy the anonymous nature of the situation which the experimenter had earlier stressed as important. (Darley and Latane', 1968, p. 382)

The epileptic seizure study showed that the mere

"perception that other people are also witnessing the event will markedly decrease the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency," but it did not test the

19 pluralistic ignorance component of Darley and Latane''s model (Latane' & Darley, 1968, p. 215) .

In order to do so, Latane' and Darley (1968) conducted an experiment in which smoke (harmless titanium dioxide) was pumped into a laboratory room in which participants were filling out attitude surveys. Participants worked either in isolation, or with two other participants, who were either real participants or accomplices. Results showed that during the simulated emergency, participants who worked in isolation usually sought help. However, the vast majority of participants who were paired with either accomplices or real participants simply did not react at all, despite the fact that their lives seemed to be in danger. Seemingly, the inaction of the other participants served as a guide for the behavior of each participant. Obviously, they decided that since no one else was acting, they would not act either.

Latane' and Rodin (1969) found similar results as subjects waiting either alone, with a friend, or with a stranger, heard a woman fall to the ground and cry out in pain. Subjects waiting alone were far more likely to intervene than were those subjects waiting in pairs.

However, pairs of friends were more likely to intervene than were pairs of strangers. Latane' and Rodin suggest that this happened because friends are "less likely to misinterpret each others [sic] initial inaction than

20 strangers" (p. 189), thus giving credence to the pluralistic ignorance component of the Darley-Latane' model. These experiments demonstrate the powerful effects of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility on people's helping behavior.

Urban Environment

If negative-state relief alone affects helping, then it could be expected that city dwellers would be more helpful than townspeople because of the hassles associated with daily life in the city. Theoretically, these stresses

should induce a negative-state more often (Brewer & Crano,

1994). Milgram (1977) conducted a series of studies in order to test this hypothesis. Milgram found that urbanites were much less likely to assist others in need of help. For example, in one study in which experimenters asked householders if they could use their telephone, results showed that city dwellers were only half as likely to offer help as town dwellers were.

Zimbardo (1969) found similar results in an experiment conducted in order to test the possibility that the greater anonymity of the city inclines city dwellers to be less helpful that their town dwelling counterparts. Zimbardo parked one car in Manhattan, New York and one in Palo Alto,

California. In each city, he propped the hoods up to signify that the cars were not in working order. Results

21 showed that the car in Manhattan was stripped of all moveable parts within a very short period, but that no one

in Palo Alto even touched the car, except to roll up a

window. Likewise, Latane' and Darley (1970) found that the

smaller the size of the community in which a subject grew

up, the more likely she was to help a victim of an

emergency.

Korte (1981) reviewed a number of studies which found

increased helpful behavior in nonurban areas and concluded

that "urban-nonurban differences in social behavior occur

only for helpfulness between strangers" (p. 316). These

results suggest that a host of factors, including anonymity,

could affect the differences in the helping responses

between urbanites and townsfolk (Brewer & Crano, 1994).

Sex Eagly and Crowley (1986) argue that "like other social

behaviors, helping can be viewed as role behavior and

therefore is being regulated by the social norms that apply

to individuals based on the roles they occupy" (p. 283).

Eagly and Crowley (1986) maintain that for this reason, the

helping behavior most often exhibited by females differs in

type from the helping behavior males most often engage in.

Specifically, the male role favors helping behavior that is

more heroic and chivalrous, while the female role fosters

helping that is nurturant and caring. Eagly and Crowley

(1986) reviewed the results of 172 studies on helping and

22 confirmed their expectation that men are more helpful than women in certain situations and vice versa. Men offer more help when intervention is dangerous (consistent with the heroic role), an audience is present (amplifying normative pressures - men should help people in need), and other helpers are available (amplifying competition to perform according to expectations). Women, on the other hand, provide their friends with personal favors, emotional support and informal counseling about personal problems more often than men do.

Eagly and Crowley (1986) suggest that the helping behavior displayed by males and females differs in social context as well. Helping behaviors consistent with the male gender role encompass "nonroutine and risky acts of rescuing others" who are usually strangers (p. 284). The helping behaviors of women usually consist of caring for others, primarily in close relationships. The researchers attribute these differences in type and social context of prosocial behavior among the sexes to social roles. According to

Eagly and Crowley (1986), first, society as a whole expects and rewards such behavior from each sex. Furthermore, people are more likely to perform a helping behavior that they feel competent and comfortable engaging in. Since women more often occupy professional and private roles involving nurturing and men are "especially well represented in paid occupations that may require placing one's life in

23 jeopardy to help others," it is possible that each gender engages in helping acts in which they are most skilled

(Eagly & Crowley, 1986, p. 285).

Results of Eagly and Crowley's (1986) study showed that men were significantly more likely to help women than other men, whereas women were equally likely to aid either sex.

Men were equally likely to receive help from either men or women, while women were more likely to receive help from men. Thus, men helping women was an especially prevalent

form of helping. In the 172 studies reviewed by Eagly and

Crowley (1986), men helped more often than women did. The

researchers attribute this finding to the abundance of

studies confined to short-term encounters with strangers.

Since men are more likely to perform heroic or chivalrous

acts of helping strangers and women are more likely to

nurture and assist in ongoing personal relationships, Eagly

and Crowley (1986) argue that it makes sense for men to be more helpful in the studies they reviewed, because most of

those studies tested for heroic or chivalrous help between

strangers. The researchers also found that men were

"considerably more helpful than women when helping was

elicited by presentation of a need (and was therefore less

assertive) and only slightly more helpful than women when

helping was elicited by a direct request (and was therefore

compliant)" (Eagly & Crowley, 1986, p. 302).

24 Considerable evidence indicates that dependent persons

(people expressing a high or urgent need for help), are more likely to be helped than nondependent persons (Berkowitz,

1970; Schopler & Bateson, 1965). However, there are some qualifiers to the positive relationship between dependency and helping. Schopler and Bateson (1965) found that dependent persons were helped more when the costs of helping were low than when the costs were high. The researchers found that when costs were low, females helped dependent females more than nondependent females, while the reverse relationship held for men. Schopler and Bateson (1965) argued that the interaction of dependency and the sex of the potential helper occurred because: (1) among women, dependency cues social responsibility and consequent help-giving, and (2) among men, dependency serves as a cue that status difference between the potential helper and victim would be reduced if the dependent person is given help. Berkowitz (1970) lends support to this theory when he

reports that several studies suggest "men are less apt to help a dependent peer than are women because men are more

disposed to compare their outcomes with the benefits the

dependent person stands to gain" (p. 145). If men believe

their help will give the other person more benefits than

they can receive from the situation, they will resent the

anticipated difference in outcomes and be less willing to

help.

25 Interestingly, Cruder and Cook (1971) reported that help was often withheld from females who explicitly asked for it and were not dependent. Gruder and Cook (1971) suggest that "nondependent females who ask for help are seen by both males and females as exploiting any advantages they think their sex might have, while dependent females are seen as acting their role" (p. 294). However, a request for help did not affect helping behavior given to dependent or nondependent males. Gruder and Cook (1971) postulate:

Males in the United States culture are supposed to be independent and competent--they are not expected to ask for aid. If they do ask, they may be perceived as acting out of role. A likely inference that a potential helper might draw from an out-of-role request for help is that irrespective of the level of dependency, a male requesting help must have an extraordinary need for it. (p. 294)

Race and Ethnicity

The effects of the race and ethnicity of the victim and bystander is an interesting area in the research on helping.

On its face, the literature on this subject appears somewhat contradictory. For example, Wegner and Crano (1975) found that white subjects were significantly more likely to help a black victim who had dropped a deck of 500 cards than were black subjects to help white victims. On the other hand,

Gaertner and Bickman (1971) conducted a study in which a

hapless victim of car trouble spent his last dime in an

attempt to reach a service station, but accidentally dialed

26 the home of a naive subject, who could choose to help by subsequently calling the station for the victim. The caller's voice was identifiably white or black. Results showed that high levels of same race helping occurred for whites, but not for blacks. In addition, black subjects were more likely to help whites subjects than the reverse.

Other studies suggest no difference in levels of same-race helping. Graf and Riddell (1972) found that a black or a white male was equally likely to be able to hitch a ride in both black and white neighborhoods.

A closer consideration of the seemingly contradictory studies suggests a means of reconciliation (Brewer & Crano,

1994). For example, in many studies that find decreased helping across racial lines, the potential helper and victim are not in a face-to-face situation. On the other hand, those studies that found high levels of helping in cross-race situations tended to use face-to-face situations.

Brewer and Crano (1994) explain the results:

These results make sense if we assume that people in contemporary society recognize a norm that specifies that it is inappropriate to discriminate against another person because of race or ethnicity. When this antiracist norm is salient, as in face-to-face situations with innocent victims of chance events, people act in a nondiscriminatory manner. However, when the norm of nondiscrimination is not salient, when the victim cannot monitor the helper's response, when the victim 'caused the problem,' the likelihood of racial bias may be intensified, (p. 291)

27 Frey and Gaertner (1986) report results that are consistent with this explanation. They observe that their findings "support the view that racial prejudice among whites is likely to be expressed in subtle, indirect, and rationalizable ways, whereas more direct and obvious expressions of prejudice are avoided. This pattern appears "well suited to protect a nonprejudiced, nondiscriminatory self-image among those whose racial attitudes might be best characterized as ambivalent" (Frey & Gaertner, 1986, p. 1087) .

Attraction/Liking

Baron (1971) conducted an experiment designed to investigate the hypothesis that people would be more likely to comply with requests made by liked others than by disliked others. Undergraduate students rated the attractiveness of a confederate, who then asked them to either return a notebook to a girl who lived in the same dormitory as the student (a small request), to return several books to the library (a moderate request), or to return the same books to the library, check them out in the subject's own name and hold them until the confederate could pick them up several days later (a large request). Results indicated that significantly more subjects agreed to grant the request of a liked other than a disliked other, "but

28 only under conditions where the magnitude of these appeals was relatively great" (Baron, 1971, p. 325).

Regan (1971) investigated the effect of liking on compliance gaining and reported results similar to Baron's

(1971). Subjects were more likely to comply with a request made by someone they liked than by someone they disliked.

Kelly and Byrne (1976) conducted an experiment in which

subjects inspected either positive or negative evaluations

of themselves supposedly made either by a confederate (the

victim) or by another student who was not present in the

room (the bystander). The subject then rated his/her

attraction to the victim and bystander. Attraction ratings

were higher for victims and bystanders who had delivered

positive evaluations and lower for those who had delivered

negative evaluations. The subject was then given the

opportunity to pull a lever which would terminate an

electric shock being given to the victim. Altruism was

measured by the speed of the shock termination. Results

showed that those subjects who were attracted to either the

bystander or the victim terminated the shock much more

quickly. Kelley and Byrne (1976) go on to explain that:

Failure to learn the altruistic response may be interpretable as passive aggression. In effect, subjects were able to respond with socially acceptable aggression toward someone who had responded negatively to them simply by failing to rush to ameliorate his pain. (p. 66)

29 Takemura (1992) studied the relationship between interpersonal sentiment, which is a measure of liking, and helping in order to demonstrate that "positive sentiment toward a target person increased the subject's willingness to help and that negative sentiment toward a target person decreased the subject's willingness to help" (p. 680).

Consistent with Kelly and Byrne's (1976) study, participants in Takemura's experiment were more likely to help a well-liked person than a neutral person and more likely to help a neutral person than a disliked person.

Similarity

Byrne (1971) demonstrated that similarities in attitudes between a subject and victim increase interpersonal attraction and liking. Karylowski (1976) studied the hypothesis that people should be willing to work harder to help similar than dissimilar others. Indeed, subjects showed higher altruistic motivation scores for similar than dissimilar partners. Karylowski (1976) maintains that the relationship between similarity and helping reflects the "transposition of positive orientations toward ourselves to similar other persons" (p. 74). As support for this argument, Karylowski (1976) points to the strong positive relationship between high self-esteem and helping others. In essence, since people are oriented to

30 satisfy their own needs, this allocentric motivation is generalized to persons perceived as similar to the self.

Relationship Between Helper and Victim

The relationship between the helper and the victim is another factor that influences helping behavior. Results show that even a minimal personal relationship between individuals increases the likelihood that help will be given. Howard and Crano (1975) conducted an experiment in which an experimenters sat down near students in a library.

In one condition, an experimenter asked a student for the time of day. In the other condition, an experimenter made no request for the time. Later, the experimenter left the table, but signified that he/she would return by leaving her/his possessions behind. After the experimenter was out

of sight, an accomplice came by and stole the experimenter's books. Howard and Crano (1975) found that when an

experimenter established a minimal relationship with a

student by asking for the time, she/he received more help in

retrieving her/his books than when the experimenter did not

have any prior contact with the student.

Rpsponsibility Assignment

Moriarty (1975) examined the hypothesis that

individuals who feel a greater responsibility for the

helping situation are more likely to aid another in need.

31 Moriarty sent his accomplice to the beach. The accomplice either asked other beach goers to watch his radio or asked if he could borrow a match. When a second accomplice came by to steal the radio, results showed that people were much more likely to intervene on behalf of the theft victim if they had been asked to watch the radio. The rate of intervention for people who had only been asked for a match decreased substantially.

However, under certain circumstances, responsibility can be assigned by other onlookers instead of the victim herself. (Brewer & Crano, 1994). This is especially true if another witness is presumed to be more qualified to handle the emergency. Piliavin and Piliavin (1975) demonstrated this by staging a medical emergency on a subway car in New

York City, in which one of the passengers appeared to pass out. When a man who appeared to be a doctor was present on

the car, other individuals were far less likely to come to the aid of the victim. Apparently, onlookers assigned

responsibility to people who look qualified to help, thereby

strongly reducing their own feelings of obligation to help.

personality Variables

Several researchers have identified what they term a

"prosocial personality" (Wilson & Petruska, 1984).

Prosocial personality is one characterized by the variables

of "high self-esteem, an internal locus of control, a low

32 need for approval, low Machiavellianism, low responsibility denial, a post-conventional level of moral judgment, and the values of helpfulness and equality as assessed by the

Rokeach value scale" (Aronoff & Wilson, 1984; Huston &

Korte, 1975; & Staub, 1978). Wilson (1976) and Ward and

Wilson (1980) supported the concept of the prosocial personality with findings that esteem oriented individuals were relatively consistent in prosocial behavior across social situations. Wilson (1976) found that insecure and anxious subjects modeled the behavior of passive or active bystanders, while esteem-oriented individuals actively and consistently initiated helping behavior.

Rationale for Researching Helping Behaviors

There are many potential advantages of continued research on the nature of helping behavior and the factors that influence such behavior. As Darley and Latane' (1968) point out, "If people understood the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them" (p. 383). The researchers are implying that only by knowing how helping behavior works can we manipulate that process to produce more favorable outcomes for ourselves, when we need help, and for others, when they need help.

33 CHAPTER III

VERBAL IMMEDIACY

The purpose of this section is (1) to examine immediacy as a general construct, and (2) to discuss the difference between nonverbal and verbal immediacy.

Definition of Immediacy

Immediacy is a situational variable that has received a great deal of attention in the communication studies

literature (Frymier, 1994). The study of immediacy, particularly teacher immediacy in classroom interaction, has been well documented in instructional communication

(Christophel & Gorham, 1995). Immediacy has been defined as

"a communication variable that impacts the perception of physical and psychological closeness" (Richmond, Gorham, &

McCroskey, 1987). Mehrabian (1966, 1967, 1971) originally

coined the term immediacy to refer to "the degree of directness and intensity of interaction between a communicator and the objects of communication" (Mehrabian,

1967a, p. 414). Mehrabian (1971) further describes

immediacy as a construct which allows people to reduce the psychological distance that may exist between themselves and others. Immediacy is based on the "universal element of

approach and avoidance--people approach things they like and

that appeal to them, and avoid things that they dislike, do

34 not appeal to them, or which induce fear" (Richmond, et al., 1987). Mehrabian (1971) stated that "liking and immediacy are two sides of the same coin" (p. 77).

Nonverbal Immediacy vs. Verbal Immediacy

According to Mehrabian (1967), immediacy may be either

verbal or nonverbal in nature. Mehrabian and his colleagues

(e.g. Mehrabian, 1971; Weiner & Mehrabian, 1968) describe a

series of behaviors that constitute nonverbal immediacy,

including closer proximity, smiling, eye contact, gestures.

Anderson and Anderson (1982) described nonverbal immediacy

behaviors as nonspoken actions which are approach behaviors,

signals of availability for communication, typically

mulitchanneled, and communications of interpersonal

closeness and warmth. Cooper (1995) states:

Varying voice pitch, loudness and tempo; smiling; leaning toward a person; face-to-face body position; decreasing physical barriers (such as standing or sitting behind a desk); gestures; using overall body movements; being relaxed and spending time with someone can all communicate immediacy, (p. 58)

Ellis (1995) notes that immediacy can also include

vocal expressiveness, movement about the class (in a

classroom environment), and a relaxed posture.

Gorham (1988) expanded the research on immediacy to

include verbal immediacy. Verbal immediacy behaviors

include the distance of pronouns, order of references,

duration of the conversation, active versus passive

35 communication, verb tense (present versus past), inclusiveness ("we/us" versus "me/I"), and voluntarism

("want" versus "should") (Mehrabian, 1976b; Weiner &

Mehrabian, 1968). Gorham (1988) discusses the components of verbal immediacy:

The teacher's use of humor in class appears to be of particular importance, as are his/her praise of students' work, actions, or comments and frequency of initiating and/or willingness to be engaged in ' conversations with students before, after, or outside of class. In addition, a teacher's self-disclosure, following up on student initiated topics, reference to class as "our" class and what "we" are doing; discussion topics; and invitations for students to telephone or meet with him/her outside of class if they have questions or want to discuss something all contribute meaningfully to student reported cognitive and affective learning, (pp. 47-48)

Because several previous studies have examined the

relationship between nonverbal immediacy and helping

behavior (e.g. Foehl & Goldman, 1983; Burroughs, Kearney, &. Plax 1989; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988; Persi,

1998) this paper will focus solely on verbal immediacy and

its possible relation to helping behavior. Limiting the

subject of discussion in this manner allows for a more

focused and in-depth examination of the material.

36 Current Research on Verbal Immediacy

and Related Variahlps

Student Learning

Several studies suggest that immediacy and various

types of learning are highly related (Anderson & Anderson,

1982; Christensen & Menzel, 1990; Christophel, 1990;

Comstock, Rowell & Bowers, 1995; Gorham, 1988; Gorham &

Zakahi, 1990; Richmond, Gorham & McCroskey, 1987; Sanders &

Wiseman, 1990). Christophel (1990) investigated the effects

of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy on student motivations and perceptions of cognitive and affective

learning. Results showed significant, positive

relationships between the variables. However,

"Christophel's research hinted that the chain of events

leading from immediacy to learning is not completely clear,

as several of the instructor immediacy behaviors initially

affected student's state motivation before actually

affecting perceived learning" (Menzel & Carrell, 1999, pp.

32-33). Richmond, Gorham and McCroskey (1987) linked nonverbal immediacy to cognitive learning. Results

indicated that specific nonverbal behaviors, including vocal

expressiveness, smiling in class, a relaxed posture, making

eye contact with the class, and moving around the room.

Richmond, et al. found that low nonverbal immediacy

decreased cognitive and affective learning, while moderate

37 to high levels increased cognitive development and affective growth. Comstock, Rowell and Bowers (1995) found that nonverbal teacher immediacy has an inverted U curvilinear relationship with cognitive, affective and behavioral learning. In their words, "moderately high teacher immediacy is more effective in helping students learn than either excessively high or low immediacy" (Comstock, Rowell & Bowers, 1995, p. 251).

Christophel's (1990) research indicated that nonverbal

immediacy behaviors affect learning more substantially than verbal immediacy behaviors do. However, Christensen and

Menzel (1998) demonstrated that under certain circumstances, verbal immediacy was a more powerful correlate of student perceived learning. Specifically, in their study, verbal

immediacy was linked more strongly than nonverbal immediacy with perceived learning and motivation. "Students associated nonverbal immediacy more with teachers they like, while they associate verbal immediacy more with teachers that they would like to take again" (Christensen & Menzel,

1998, p. 89). In attempting to explain why their study turned up results that were seemingly contradictory to past research, Menzel and Christensen (1998) posit that verbal immediacy seems to be more closely linked to student learning when class sizes are small (as they were in Menzel and Christensen's study).

38 Large class sizes and low intimacy could easily produce greater attention to more details of communication, i.e., nonverbal immediacy behaviors, while small class sizes and more established relationships could lead to less attention to nonverbal cues and more attention to words spoken. (Christensen & Menzel, 1998, p. 89)

Student Motivation

Motivation has often been defined in terms of "drive reduction...or the satisfaction of needs..." (Frymier, 1994, p. 135). According to these types of definitions, people are motivated to do things which are reinforcing in such a way that they reduce some drive or satisfy some need (like achievement, affiliation, or affection). Brophy (1986) asserts that motivation exists as a trait and/or a state within individuals. In the classroom context, trait motivation refers to a students general and enduring motivation toward studying and learning. State motivation, on the other hand, is highly situational and refers to a

student's motivational orientation toward a "particular

class, task, or a content area at a particular time"

(Frymier, 1994, p. 135).

Christophel (1990) conducted a study in which university students were asked to rate the verbal and nonverbal immediacy of the teacher of the class immediately preceding the one that they were attending. In addition,

the students reported their own motivation for the class.

Results indicated that those students who perceived their

39 teachers as more verbally and nonverbally immediate were far more likely to report high levels of class motivation than were students who rated their teachers as low in verbal and nonverbal immediacy. Christophel concluded that:

(1) trait motivation has little impact on learning outcomes, and then only when combined with state motivation; (2) state motivation levels are modifiable within the classroom environment; (3) state motivation has a strong impact on learning; and (4) immediacy's effect on learning is indirect, operating through its direct impact on state motivation. (Gorham & Christophel, 1992, p. 240) Frymier (1994) found additional support for the idea that teacher immediacy in the classroom contributes directly to motivation, but not directly to learning. Frymier (1994) concludes that "the situational factors of teacher nonverbal and verbal immediacy behaviors seem to have a greater impact on state motivation to study for a particular class than does trait motivation" (1994, p. 141). Frymier (1994)

attributes the results of the study to the fact that

immediacy may have an impact on motivation because it meets most of the tenets of Keller's Motivation Model. The motivation model and immediacy overlap in the areas of

gaining attention (as in eye contact, vocal variety and

calling by name), confidence and positive expectations

(illustrated by student's willingness to take another class

from an immediate teacher), and satisfaction (illustrated by

student's high levels of satisfaction with immediate

40 teachers and courses taught by immediate teachers) (Frymier, 1994) .

Gorham and Christophel (1992) found that students' overall motivation to perform well in college courses is affected only in part by their perception of their teachers' behaviors. However, results showed that "negative teacher behaviors are perceived as more central to student's demotivation than positive behaviors are perceived as central to their motivation" (Gorham & Christophel,'1992, p.

249). Interestingly, students are more likely to attribute their lack of motivation to a fault of their teacher and to attribute their being motivated to their own talent, determination to succeed, or interest in the subject.

Frymier and Shulman (1995) found that teacher

immediacy, especially when used while making the content of classroom material relevant to students' personal and occupational goals, increases students' state motivation.

Sanders and Wiseman (1990) found similar patterns involving the effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on student learning in a multicultural classroom environment.

Student Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension (CA) can be defined as "an

individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either

real or anticipated communication with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1977). Ellis (1995) found that there

41 is a positive relationship between teachers' verbal

immediacy and decrease of communication apprehension among

individuals with high levels of such anxiety. Ellis (1995)

reports that the results may be due in part to the

relationship between CA and low self-esteem, which makes it

"intuitively congruent that teacher immediacy behaviors

communicate to students that the teacher cares about them and values them as individuals" (p. 74).

Teachers' Use of Humor

Kaplan and Pascoe (1977) conducted an experiment in which groups of participants were presented with either a

lecture presented with humorous examples related to the

concepts, one with unrelated humor, or one with mixed examples. Subjects were then tested for comprehension and

retention. Results showed that total test scores among the three groups were not significantly different, and it was concluded by the researchers that "general comprehension and retention of a classroom message is not significantly improved by the use of humor" (Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977, pp.

64-65). Gorham and Christophel (1990) studied the relationship between humor, verbal immediacy, and student learning. Results demonstrated that humor, used in conjunction with higher levels of verbal immediacy can have a positive affect on student learning. Gorham and

Christophel (1990) conclude:

42 On the whole...more immediate teachers do use more humor and do engender more learning; however, the volume of humor alone is not as important as the composition of humor used. (p. 60)

For example, teachers with very low overall immediacy may not benefit from the increased used of humor if they do not also increase their other immediacy behaviors.

Likewise, teachers with very high overall immediacy may not benefit from increased use of humor as they may experience

"overkill" (Gorham & Christophel, 1990).

Teacher Effectiveness

Anderson and Anderson (1987) reported that teacher immediacy behaviors were positively related to effective teaching. The authors reported that these immediacy behaviors produced higher levels of affect for the teacher, the course content, and the school, as well as increased learning. Moore, Masterson, Christophel and Shea (1996) examined the relationship between college student perceptions of teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction, two constructs often used to describe and explain perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Results showed that students who observed teachers as frequently engaging in verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors were more inclined to rate the courses and quality of overall instruction as favorable.

43 Willingness to Talk

Immediacy and gender seem to work together to "affect how students choose to engage themselves in the learning dialogue" (Menzel & Carrell, 1999, p. 33). Christensen,

Curley, Marquez and Menzel (1995) report that when, how and how much a student participates in the classroom is affected by the gender of the student and the immediacy of the

instructor. Menzel and Carrell (1999) examined the

hypothesis that a student's willingness to talk and perceived learning in a class would "vary based on

instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy behavior" and "as

a function of the interaction of instructor gender and

student gender" (p. 34). Results showed that students were more willing to talk when instructors were high in verbal

immediacy than when they were low or moderate in verbal

immediacy. Neither nonverbal immediacy nor student or

instructor gender affected students' willingness to talk.

Willingness to talk was correlated positively with perceived

learning. In addition, verbal immediacy and perceived

learning correlated positively across all groups. However, nonverbal immediacy seems to affect perceptions of learning

in females differently than in males.

For male students, perceptions of learning increased between low nonverbal immediacy and moderate nonverbal immediacy groups, but they did not increase between moderate and high nonverbal immediacy. For females, perceptions of learning increased across all three

44 levels of perceived instructor nonverbal immediacy. (Menzel & Carrell, 1999, p. 36)

Overall, verbal immediacy was a more significant factor in

increasing student willingness to talk than nonverbal

immediacy was. Menzel and Carrell (1999) attempt to explain this finding in the following way:

Although nonverbal behaviors signal to the student that an instructor is open to his or her contribution, verbal behaviors may actually ask for the contribution. If oral participation is the outcome sought, then verbal immediacy seems to be a good way to achieve that outcome, (p. 38)

Attitudes

Mehrabian and Weiner (1966) found that there is more

immediacy in communications about liked people or successful

events than in communication about disliked people or unsuccessful events. The researchers reported that because of these differentiated levels of immediacy, trained observers could use immediacy as a cue for inferring the communicator's attitude concerning the object of communication. Mehrabian (1966) hypothesized that

"untrained observers judge the less immediate form of two statements... as indicating relatively more negative communicator evaluation of the object" (p. 29). Results confirmed the Mehrabian hypothesis, lending support to the notion that the inference of attitudes from the level of immediacy is not restricted to groups of trained observers.

Mehrabian (1967) investigated the hypothesis that untrained

45 subjects would also judge the more immediate of two explicitly neutral communications as indicating a more positive attitude. According to Mehrabian (1967),

If contrasting degrees of immediacy are made focal in a pair of statements, the more immediate statement of these pair is judged as expressing a greater degree of liking, positive evaluation, or preference towards the object of communication, (p. 416)

Rationale for Researching Verbal Immediacy

Much remains to be learned about the nature and applications of verbal immediacy. By further researching verbal immediacy and its effects in different situations, we stand to improve the communicative ability and produce better outcomes for individuals and society. These benefits would be especially profound in the classroom. Menzel and

Carrell (1999) report that:

Instructor communicative excellence in the classroom is a continual focus of investigation for all of us in communication education. We pursue this research goal, hoping to construct the most complete list possible of teaching behaviors which can be transmitted to current and future instructors. Our aim is to continually improve the educational process via the transformation of all instructors into competent classroom communicators, (p. 31)

Nussbaum (1992) suggested that immediacy behaviors can be acquired. He notes that "a strong case is made that

immediacy behaviors can be learned by the teacher once the teacher is convinced to feel positive affect for the

46 student" (p. 168). Likewise, Jensen's (1999) research indicates that immediacy can be trained.

Despite the fact that most studies on verbal immediacy have focused on the classroom context, the benefits of verbal immediacy are not limited to the classroom. Verbal immediacy has been shown to produce positive effects in a managerial and organizational contexts as well (e. g.

Bybee-Lovering, 1999; Coats, 1999).

47 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION

Areas of Overlap

After having discussed the nature of helping behavior and of verbal immediacy, it becomes useful to examine the possible relationship between the two constructs. There has been no study directly linking the two; however, several

interesting overlaps in the literature on altruism and on verbal immediacy hint at a connection between them. Given the nature of these overlaps, one could intuitively expect helping behavior to be affected by verbal immediacy. This

section will investigate several key overlaps in the

literature.

Self-disclosure/Attraction

Several studies have found that an individual is

socially rewarded when s/he is the recipient of

self-disclosure and, consequently, increases her/his interpersonal attraction to the person providing intimate personal information about her/himself (e.g.... Worthy, Gary

& Kahn, 1969) Daher and Banikiotes (1976) investigated the hypothesis that self-disclosure increases interpersonal attraction. Results showed a strong positive relationship between similar amounts of self-disclosure and interpersonal attraction and content similarity of self-disclosure and

48 attraction. Attraction was highest when both amount of disclosure and content similarity occurred. Daher and Banikiotes (1976) summarize:

Results indicated that along with the amount of disclosure, similarity in the content of the disclosed material and similarity between subject's and another's level of disclosure had a positive influence of attraction, (p. 493)

The researchers attribute their finding to the idea that the

"receptions of self-disclosed material is rewarding...(and)

by a social exchange theory explanation, the one who gives positive outcomes tends to be liked..." (Daher & Banikiotes, 1976, p. 492).

Sorensen (1989) investigated the relationship between

teacher self-disclosure and affective learning. Results

indicated that teachers who used positively worded

disclosures and sentiments were perceived by students as more positive. Such statements increased affective

learning, increased student perceptions of teacher-student

solidarity, and increased student perceptions of teacher

immediacy.

The finding that self-disclosure increases attraction

is particularly relevant in establishing a relationship between helping behavior and verbal immediacy. Gorham

(1988) includes self-disclosure as a component of verbal

immediacy, and as an integral item on the Verbal Immediacy

Scale. This, coupled with findings that people are more

49 likely to help liked than unliked others (e.g. Baron, 1971;

Regan, 1971; Kelley, & Byrne 1976; Takemura, 1992), provides some rationale for the hypothesis that self-disclosure could facilitate helping behavior by increasing liking.

Harrell (1977) examined the hypothesis that a person who discloses personal information is more likely to receive help than a person who does not self-disclose. Subjects on a university campus were approached by a confederate asking

for directions. The confederate either disclosed or did not disclose personal information. Results showed that a longer average time was spent giving directions if the confederate

self-disclosed than if she did not. This study also

revealed that the perceived seriousness of the reason for

requesting help affected the amount of help given. "Less help (least) was given when the confederate simply had to meet a friend than when there was a serious personal need or when the request was altruistically motivated..." (Harrell,

1977, p. 1122) .

Hence, helping behavior positively correlates with self-disclosure, which is an important characteristic of verbal immediacy.

Nonverbal Immediacy

Although the focus of this paper is on verbal immediacy and its possible relationship to helping behavior, it is also important to consider links between nonverbal immediacy

50 and helping behavior. Because nonverbal immediacy and verbal immediacy are both facets or constructs of psychological closeness and produce similar outcomes in numerous situations, examining research conducted on nonverbal immediacy and its relationship with altruism sheds light on the subject at hand.

Helping behavior. Several studies have examined the

effects of nonverbal immediacy behaviors and characteristics

on prosocial behavior. Goldman and Fordyce (1983)

investigated the effects of eye contact, touch and voice

expression on prosocial behavior. Subjects on a college

campus were interviewed by a confederate who either engaged

in frequent or no eye contact with the subject, either

touched or did not touch the subject, and either spoke in a

"warm, expressive tone of voice" or a "flat, nonexpressive voice" (p. 125). Results showed greater levels of helping the interviewer pick up several folded questionnaires that had accidentally been dropped when the interviewer had used an expressive tone of voice. High levels of helping also occurred in the high eye contact/ no touch condition and the no eye contact/touch condition. However, when frequent eye contact and touching were employed in conjunction and when no eye contact or touch were employed, low levels of helping ensued (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983). According to Goldman and

Fordyce (1983) "the interaction obtained between eye contact and touch is in agreement with the equilibrium hypothesis,

51 which states that too great a level of intimacy, as well as too little a level of intimacy, may produce an adverse effect" (p. 128) .

Goldman and Fordyce (1983) report that eye contact and touch may lead to greater levels of prosocial behavior and

compliance gaining because the victim or requester is

"viewed as psychologically closer" to the target person.

Thus it has been suggested that eye contact and touch create higher levels of intimacy between the target person and requester. If intimacy is a factor which produces a higher degree of compliance, it should also induce increased helping behavior: one would be more apt to help another to whom one feels closer. (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983, p. 126)

Goldman and Fordyce (1983) go on to describe the

relationship of expressiveness to helping behavior in a similar way. They state:

Expressive individuals who use gestures freely, who use distinct facial expression, and engage in frequent body movement have been perceived as being more charismatic and more effective at persuasion than less expressive people...Vocal expression has also been shown to induce strong impressions of such diverse characteristics as aptitudes, interests, intelligence, and personality traits.... (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983, p. 126)

Verbal immediacy has been defined as "a communication variable that impacts the perception of physical and psychological closeness" (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey,

1987). It is because the researchers attribute the positive relationship between nonverbal immediacy behaviors and prosocial behavior to an increase in psychological closeness that it could be expected that verbal immediacy would have

52 similar effects on helping behavior. In theory, verbal immediacy would lead to increased perceptions of intimacy and liking, which would result in greater amounts or frequency of helping. However, given the fact that researchers (Goldman & Fordyce, 1983) discovered that either too much or too little nonverbal immediacy may inhibit helping, it is possible that there is also an optimal range of verbal immediacy required for an increase in helping to occur.

Compliance Gaining. The literature on compliance

gaining and nonverbal immediacy also provides some insight

into the possible relationship between verbal immediacy and helping. Goldman and Fordyce (1983) state that "with

respect to similarities, it would be expected that procedures which have increased compliance would also be

useful to inducing altruism" (p. 125). Foehl and Goldman

(1983) lend support to the notion that compliance-gaining

research can be generalized to helping behavior when they

report that foot-in-the door and door-in-the-face, two

techniques which have been repeatedly successful for

enhancing compliance, would also heighten prosocial

behavior.

Although there has been no study directly examining

verbal immediacy and compliance-gaining/helping, several

have examined nonverbal immediacy or general immediacy and

compliance-gaining. Burroughs, Kearney, and Plax (1989)

53 investigated the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and compliance resistance strategies. "Interestingly, teachers demonstrating low nonverbal immediacy were resisted more often than teachers using more immediate communicator styles...yet the use of antisocial strategies faced less resistance than the use of prosocial strategies" (p. 202).

Kearney, Plax, Smith, and Sorensen (1988) found that teachers high in nonverbal immediacy were resisted less overall. "Additionally, instructors high in nonverbal

immediacy were most effective at gaining compliance when prosocial techniques were used. However, instructors low in nonverbal immediacy proved more effective in gaining

compliance when antisocial tactics were used" (Kearney, et

al., 1988, p. 203).

Persi (1998) postulated that the enactment of student

immediacy behaviors would positively influence teacher

compliance with the student's requests. Results showed that

teachers were more likely to "comply with an immediate

student's request than with a student who was not immediate"

(p. 31). The author attributes this result to the idea that

a teacher "would comply with a student who is generally

perceived as being well liked and affiliative, (because)

this may indicate to the teacher that he or she does in fact

favor that particular individual and would do things they

normally would not do for less desirable students" (Persi,

1998, p. 31).

54 The findings that both nonverbal immediacy and general immediacy increase compliance, and that compliance-gaining research can often be generalized to altruism gives further justification for expecting a relationship between verbal immediacy and helping.

Relationship Between Helper and Victim

Howard and Crano's (1975) finding that the existence of a relationship (even a minimal one) between a bystander and a victim increases the likelihood that help will be rendered also has relevance in this discussion. If one assumes that a closer relationship is one that involves more psychological closeness (or, in Mehrabians' words, "the degree of directness and intensity of interaction between a

communicator and the objects of communication" [1967a, p.

414]), then it follows that verbal immediacy could help establish relationships between bystanders and victims by decreasing the perceived distance between people.

One obvious limitation of the relationship between helping behavior and verbal immediacy is that in many

real-world helping situations, there is no opportunity for a

communicative exchange between bystander and victim. In

emergencies, like the one Kitty Genovese faced, victims may

not have the chance to request help; rather, they may only

be able to cry "help" or simply hope that someone notices

and renders aid.

55 Such overlaps and related findings in the existing literature on helping behavior and verbal immediacy implicitly suggest a more direct connection between the two constructs. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine some possibilities for future research.

Future Research Arp;^s

This section will provide a brief sketch of a possible

research project and suggest possibilities for continued

research. In order to test the hypothesis that verbal

immediacy increases helping behavior in the classroom, a

stranger could ask students to help with some task after

class. In one condition, the experimenter would use a verbally immediate script to request the help. In the other

condition, a nonimmediate script would be used. This same design could be reversed to examine the effects of student verbal immediacy on the helping behavior of others.

Students would ask for help from strangers in either a verbally immediate or nonimmediate manner.

The relationship between helping behavior and verbal immediacy could also be tested in contexts other than the classroom. Studies carried out in an organizational setting or between strangers in an emergency or nonemergency helping situation would also provide insight into the nature of the relationship between helping and verbal immediacy.

56 CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

In summary, this paper has investigated a possible relationship between helping behavior and verbal immediacy.

By examining the concepts of helping behavior and verbal immediacy and the variables that affect them, several areas of overlap were made apparent. These areas of overlap provide justification for anticipating a relationship between helping and verbal immediacy. Though there has been no quantitative study concretely linking the two constructs,

it can be expected that future research will lend support to the hypothesis that in certain conditions, specifically those involving direct communication between potential helper and helpee, verbal immediacy increases helping behavior. Such a finding would greatly benefit those who

seek help through communication in the future. The

communication-related aspects of helping behavior are particularly relevant because, as Tracy, Craig and Spisak

(1984) point out.

The communicative ability to get another to do what one wants is perhaps the single most essential skill for participating in society. People, however, do not seem to possess this skill in equal measure. Some do it very well; others, terribly. Unfortunately, the consequences of not performing the communicative act successfully may be severe, (p. 513)

57 REFERENCES

Anderson, J. F., & Andersen, P. A. (1987). Never smile until Christmas? Casting doubt on an old myth. Journal of Thought, 22 (4), 57-61.

Anderson, P., & Anderson, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the Classroom (pp. 98-120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. (1984). Personality in the Social Process. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.

Baron, R. A. (1971). Behavioral effects of interpersonal attraction: Compliance with requests from liked and disliked others. Psychonomic Science, 25, 325-326.

Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffit, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., St Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56. 922-933.

Batson, D. & Coke, J. S. (1981). Empathy: A source of altruistic motivation for helping. In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality, and developmental perspectives. (pp. 167-187).Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, publishers.

Berkowitz, L. (1970). The self, selfishness, and altruism. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and consequences, (pp. 143-151).New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social psychology. New York, NY: West Publishing Company.

Brophy, J. (1986). Socializing student motivation to learn. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269 384)

58 Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education. 38, 214-229.

Bybee-Lovering, S. (1999). Commitment in the workplace. Unpublished masters thesis. Texas Tech University. Lubbock, TX.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211-229.

Christensen, L. J., Curley, K. E., Marquez, E. M., & Menzel, K. E. (1995, November). Classroom situations which lead to student participation. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.

Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.

Christophel, D. , & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292-306.

Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. K., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.

Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.

59 Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1972). Why don't bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 392-400.

Coats, M. (1999). Nonverbal immediacy and communication satisfaction in the hospital setting. Unpublished masters thesis. Texas Tech University. Lubbock, TX. Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinerarity. Communi cation Education, 44, 251-266.

Cooper, P. J., Stewart, L. P., & Gudyknust, W.B. (1982). Relationship with instructor and other variables influencing student evaluations of instruction. Communication Ouarterly, 30, 308-315.

Cunningham, M. R., Shaffer, D. R., Barbee, P. L., & Kelley, D. J. (1990). Separate processes on the relation of elation and depression to helping: Social versus personal concerns. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 13-33.

Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 181-192.

Daher, M. D., & Banikiotes, P. G, (1976). Interpersonal attraction and rewarding aspects of disclosure content level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 492-496.

Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27. 100-108.

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

Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 361-427). New York: Academic Press.

60 Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A Meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.

Ellis, K. (1995). Apprehension, self-perceived competency, and teacher immediacy in the laboratory-supported public speaking course: Trends and relationships. Communication Education, 44, 64-78.

Frey, D. L., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Helping and the avoidance of inappropriate interracial behavior: A strategy that perpetuates a nonprejudiced self-image. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1083-1090.

Frymier, A. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Ouarterly, 42, 133-144.

Frymier, A., St Thompson, C. (1995). Using student reports to measure immediacy: Is it a valid methodology? Communication Research Reports, 12, 85-93.

Frymier, A., & Shulman, G. (1995). "What's in it for me?": Increasing content relevance to enhance students' motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40-50.

Foehl, J. C, & Goldman, M. (1983). Increasing altruistic behavior by using compliance techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 119, 21-29.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Johnson, G. (1982). Race of victim, nonresponsive bystanders, and helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology. 117. 69-77.

Gaertner, S. L., & Bickman, L. (1971). Effects of race on the elicitation of helping behavior: The wrong number technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 20. 218-222.

Goldman, M., & Fordyce, J. (1983). Prosocial behavior as affected by eye contact, touch and voice expression. The Journal of Social Psychology. 121, 125-129.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.

61 Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46-62.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. (1992). Student's perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Ouarterly, 40, 239-252.

Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39, 354-368.

Graf, R. C. & Riddell, J. C. (1972). Helping behavior as a function of interpersonal perception. The Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 222-231.

Gruder, C. L., & Cook, T. D. (1971). Sex, dependency, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 290-294.

Harrell, W. A. (1977). Self-disclosure and reason for requesting help as factors influencing helping behavior in a field setting. Psychological Reports, 41, 1122.

Howard, W., & Crano, W. D. (1974). Effects of sex, conversation, location, and size of observer group on bystander intervention in a high risk situation. Sociometry, 37. 491-507.

Huston, T. L, & Korte, C. (1975). The responsive bystander. Why he helps. In T. Lichona (Ed.), Morality: Theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21. 384-388.

Jensen, K. (1999, under review). Training college teachers to use verbal immediacy.

62 Kaplan, R. & Pascoe, G. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 61-65. Karp, D.A., Yoels, W.C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439.

Karylowski, J. (1976). Self-esteem, similarity, liking and helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 71-74.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demand. Communication Education, 37, 54-67.

Kelly, K. & Byrne, B. (1976). Attraction and altruism: With a little help from my friends. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 59-68.

Korte, C. (1981). Constraints on helping behavior in an urban environment. In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, publishers, pp. 315-329.

Latane', B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Latane', B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10, 215-221.

Latane', B., & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 5, 189-202.

Macaulay, J. R. & Berkowitz, L. (1970) Overview. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and consequences, (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

63 McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research. 4(1), 78-96.

Mehrabian, A. (1966). Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality, 34, 26-34.

Mehrabian, A. (1967a). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communications. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294-295.

Mehrabian, A. (1967b). Attitudes inferred from neutral verbal communication. Journal of consulting psychology, 31, 414-417. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mehrabian, A., & Weiner, M. (1966). Non-immediacy between communicator and object of communication in a verbal message: Application to the inference of attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 420-425.

Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education. 48, 31-40.

Milgram, S. (1977). The individual in a social world. Reading, M.A: Addison-Wesley.

Moore, A., Masterson, J., Christophel, D., & Shea, K. (1996). College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education. 45, 30-39.

Moriarty, T. (1975). Crime, commitment, and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31, 370-376.

Nussbaum, J.F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180.

Persi, N. C. (1998, November). Investigating both Jane and John: Effects of student/teacher sex differences and student immediacy behaviors on teacher behaviors and perception. Paper presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, NY.

64 Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III. (1982). Responsive bystanders: The process of intervention. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Piliavin, J. A., & Piliavin, I. M. (1975). The effect of blood on reactions to a victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 429-438.

Regan, J. W. (1971). Guilt, perceived injustice, and altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 124-132.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rodriguez, J., Plax, T., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293-305.

Sanders, J., & Wiseman, R. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning, in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341-353.

Schopler, J. & Bateson, N. (1965). The power of dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 247-254.

Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim's status to empathetic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641-650.

Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers' self-disclosive statements, students' perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-276.

Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality vol> 1) . New York: Academic Press.

65 Sterling, B., & Gaertner, S. L. (1984). The attribution process of arousal and emergency helping: A bidirectional process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 20. 586-596.

Takemura, K. (1992). The effect of interpersonal sentiments on behavioral intention of helping behavior among Japanese students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(5^, 675-681.

Tracy, K., Craig, R. T., Smith, M., & Spisak, F. (1984). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a compliance-gaining approach. Human Communication Research. 10, 513-538.

Ward, L., & Wilson, J. P. (1980). Motivation and moral development as determinants of behavior acquiescence and moral action. The Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 271-286.

Wegner, D. M., & Crano, W. D. (1975). Racial factors in helping behavior in an unobtrusive field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 901-905.

Weiner, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Wilson, D. W. (1980). Ambiguity and helping behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 155-156.

Wilson, J. P., & Petruska, R. (1984). Motivation, model attributes, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 458-468.

Wilson, J. P. (1976). Motivation, modeling and altruism: A person X situation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1078-1086.

Worthy, M. G., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13. 59-63.

66 Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reasons, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

67