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