IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lum/rev1rl/v12y2020i1sup2p136-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Predictive Model of Youth Bystanders’ Helping Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Dana Rad

    (Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad)

  • Evelina Balas

    (Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Psychology and Social Sciences)

  • Sonia Ignat

    (Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Psychology and Social Sciences)

  • Gavril Rad

    (Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Psychology and Social Sciences)

  • Daniel Dixon

    (Asociación Cultural Social y Educativa Segundas Oportunidades, Gran Canaria, Spain)

Abstract

One of the direct effect of current COVID-19 pandemic’ social distancing on an unspecified period of time urges us to compensate our lack of physical connection with our readiness in the online environments, especially social media platforms. Present research investigates to which extent the internet content awareness construct, difficulties in emotional regulation and online duality have an impact on predicting future helping attitudes of bystanders. In order to investigate the eligibility of this prediction model, our team has advanced the Erasmus+ funded project Hate’s Journey. In 2019, our research team has designed a multiple specific sections online questionnaire addressing 206 youth from Latvia, Turkey, Spain and Romania. We have used a multiple linear regression analysis. The obtained results validate our hypothesis, confirming that if an individual is characterized by a decreased internet content awareness, a high level of difficulties in emotional regulation and increased online duality, then there is a 37% probability that the youth bystanders will develop a lack of helping attitudes towards the victims when facing a digital hate speech context. Conclusions and implications regarding to the current pandemic social distancing and digital closeness effects over the prosocial behaviour are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Dana Rad & Evelina Balas & Sonia Ignat & Gavril Rad & Daniel Dixon, 2020. "A Predictive Model of Youth Bystanders’ Helping Attitudes," Revista romaneasca pentru educatie multidimensionala - Journal for Multidimensional Education, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 12(1Sup2), pages 136-150, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:lum:rev1rl:v:12:y:2020:i:1sup2:p:136-150
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/rrem/article/view/2694
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rene Bekkers, 2007. "Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00102, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Dana Timar Rad & Tiberiu Dughi & Alina Roman & Sonia Ignat, 2019. "Perspectives of Consent Silence in Cyberbullying," Postmodern Openings, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 57-73, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dana Rad & Edgar Demeter, 2020. "A Moderated Mediation Effect of Online Time Spent on Internet Content Awareness, Perceived Online Hate Speech and Helping Attitudes Disposal of Bystanders," Postmodern Openings, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 11(2Sup1), pages 107-124, September.
    2. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    3. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    4. Jorge N Zumaeta, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Seven Standard Experimental Paradigms Comparing Student to Non-student," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 13(2), pages 22-33.
    5. R. C. Tripathi & Sunit Singh, 2017. "Psychosocial Pathways Towards a Sustainable Society," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 29(2), pages 200-220, September.
    6. Le Zhang & Andreas Ortmann, 2012. "A reproduction and replication of Engel’s meta-study of dictator game experiments," Discussion Papers 2012-44, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    7. Silvester Van Koten & Andreas Ortmann & Vitezslav Babicky, 2013. "Fairness in Risky Environments: Theory and Evidence," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-35, May.
    8. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    9. van Rijn, Jordan & Barham, Bradford & Sundaram-Stukel, Reka, 2017. "An experimental approach to comparing similarity- and guilt-based charitable appeals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 25-40.
    10. Zhiming Cheng & Russell Smyth, 2016. "Why Give it Away When You Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 53-71, January.
    11. Li, Jing, 2018. "Plastic surgery or primary care? Altruistic preferences and expected specialty choice of U.S. medical students," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-59.
    12. Pelligra, Vittorio & Stanca, Luca, 2013. "To give or not to give? Equity, efficiency and altruistic behavior in an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Yohei Mitani & Henrik Lindhjem, 2022. "Altruist Talk May (also) Be Cheap: Revealed Versus Stated Altruism as a Predictor in Stated Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 681-708, November.
    15. Banuri, Sheheryar & Keefer, Philip, 2013. "Intrinsic motivation, effort and the call to public service," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6729, The World Bank.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:527-536 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. David Bilén & Anna Dreber & Magnus Johannesson, 2021. "Are women more generous than men? A meta-analysis," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Kettner, Sara Elisa & Waichman, Israel, 2016. "Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 118-130.
    19. Jade Wong & Andreas Ortmann, 2014. "On Uneven Expected Earnings in the Lab," Discussion Papers 2014-07, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    20. Jade Wong & Andreas Ortman, 2013. "Do Donors Care About the Price of Giving? A Review of the Evidence, with Some Theory to Organize It," Discussion Papers 2013-22, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    21. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera L. te Velde, 2010. "You've Earned It: Combining Field and Lab Experiments to Estimate the Impact of Human Capital on Social Preferences," NBER Working Papers 16449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social distancing; internet content awareness; emotional regulation; helping attitudes disposal; online duality; hate speech;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A23 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Graduate

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lum:rev1rl:v:12:y:2020:i:1sup2:p:136-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antonio Sandu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/rrem/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.