l~/chological Bulletin Copyright 1987 by the American PsychologicalAssociation, Inc.

1987, Vol. 102, No. 3, 346-356 0033-2909/87f$00.75

Helping Behavior in Rural and Urban Environments: A Meta-Analysis

Nancy Mehrkens Steblay
Concordia College

A recta-analytic review examined 65 tests of the hypothesis that "country people are more helpful
than city people?' Results demonstrated a significantly greater nonurban helping response, with an
effect size of.29. However,the effect was found to be more dearly a function of context factors than
of subject factors, a finding that led to refinement of the initial hypothesis. The data indicate that
helping is more likely to occur in a nonurban than an urban context. This effect was found to be
robust across variations in helping requests and experimenter and subject variables. Discussion fo-
cuses on the unexpected positive relationship found between population size and helping rate in
small to medium-size communities. Theoretical models of urban impact and weaknesses in our
understanding of differences in rural-urban social behavior are also considered.

Social psychologists have responded with a wealth of empiri-
cal data to a question posed by researchers Darley and Latan6
(1968) almost two decades ago: Why will bystanders not help
other persons in distress? The research interest was initially
spurred by accounts Of actual incidents in which groups of by-
standers failed to respond to obvious needs of emergency vic-
tims. Although Darley and Latan6 went on to focus on other
components of this phenomenon, a minor point of their early
laboratory study (Darley & Latant, 1968) noted a significant
negative relationship between size of community in which a
subject was raised and later levels of helping behavior. This
finding confirms what perhaps for many is simple folk wisdom:
"Country people are more helpful than city people?' Stereotypi-
cal expectations are not uncommon regarding the unhelpful,
aloof behavior of urbanites and the contrasting helpful, friendly
demeanor of small-town residents (Krupat & Guild, 1980;
Schneider & Mockus, 1974).
This rather simple hypothesis that "country people are more
helpful than city people" has itself generated a great deal of re-
search interest within the broader realm of helping behavior
studies in general. Evidence for greater helping rates in rural
and small-town vicinities comes from many empirical studies
(e.g., Amato, 1981; House & Wolf, 1978; Merrens, 1973; Rush-
ton, 1978). However, the opposite outcome has at times also
been documented; that is, some research has shown urban
dwellers to be the more helpful (e.g., Hansson & Slade, 1977;
Hansson, Slade, & Slade, 1978; Weiner, 1976). Drawing again
from folk wisdom, it might be explained that it is rural persons
who are distrustful, reserved, and protective of their privacy.
This research was funded by the Bush Foundation of St. Paul, Minne-
sota, through the Bush Scholars Program of Concordia College, Moor-
head, Minnesota.
The assistance of Anna Erickson, Mark Everson, Darla Haugen, and
Marilyn Nelson in the data collection and analysis for this article is
gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also extended to Arthur L. Bea-
man and Larry Hedges for their helpful statistical expertise.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy
Mehrkens Steblay, Department of Psychology, Concordia College,
Moorhead, Minnesota 56560.
346
Finally, it must be noted that some additional tests of the rural-
urban hypothesis have reported no differences in helping rate
between people in urban and rural settings(e.g., Holahan, 1977;
Korte, Ypma, & Toppen, 1975; Rotton, 1977).
A quick tally of available research results for and against the
hypothesis indicates 46 tests of the hypothesis in support of
greater rural helpfulness, 9 in support of greater urban helpful-
hess, and 10 studies reporting no significant differences. Al-
though the original expectation for a greater rural helping rate
seems to be supported by the bulk of the literature, those results
that do not conform to this pattern lead one to question the
robustness of this social rule. More important, the exceptions
to the rule may well provide an aid to our understanding of why
in most eases a rural-urban difference does exist. Identification
of a conspicuously absent (or present) factor in those studies
that do not support the hypothesis is likely to provide insight
into the causal nature of the phenomenon. Thus it appears ap-
propriate to take time to sort out the studies, to identify relevant
explanatory variables, and to arrive at a conclusion both as to
the content issue (Who helps more after all, and why?) and to
the state of the research on this matter.
At the outset, let me note that a primary goal of the present
investigation is the precise definition of the hypothesized rural-
urban (R-U) effect. A first step, then, is to operationally define
the rural-urban variable. As noted earlier, Darley and Latan6
(1968) drew attention to the relationship between a subject's
hometown size and his or her later helping behavior. The R - U
variable in this case was conceptualized essentially as a subject
variable and specifically measured through a demographic fac-
tor, hometown size. This demographic factor may be more
broadly interpreted as an indication of personality; that is, the
assumption is that an upbringing in a small town versus an ur-
ban setting produces differential adult behaviors in the individ-
uals from these two environments. The R - U hypothesis from
this perspective implies a lack of prosocial response by urban
residents that can be traced back to a stable disposition within
those persons. Indeed, Wirth (1938) has referred to such a dis-
position as the "urban personality."
The understanding of the rural-urban variable and its impact
on behavior may be approached from another perspective as
 RURAL-URBAN HELPING
well. It is possible that helping behavior is affected in a more
transitory way; that is, the environmental context within which
the request for help occurs may well have an impact on individ-
ual response. In this light the operational definition of the R -
U variable would more appropriately involve an assessment of
helping context, rural versus urban, and the phenomenon de-
scribed in the R - U hypothesis would be explained through con-
textual factors. Along these lines, the means to understand the
hypothesized lower helping rate of the urban resident have been
offered through theoretical models that do not stress hometown
size and inferred disposition as a causal variable. For example,
Milgram (1970) suggested a picture of urban life based on the
concept of overload; his thesis argues that city residents out of
necessity adopt an unresponsive behavior mode in that environ-
ment in order to protect themselves from the overwhelming lev-
els of social and environmental stimulation in the city. From
another perspective, Fischer (1976) speculated that the hetero-
geneity of the population within large cities creates a context
wherein residents feel insecure about such diversity and subse-
quently avoid social contact with dissimilar others. Finally, Pili-
avin, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Clark (198 l) hypothesized that the
potential helper who encounters a request for aid quickly
weighs the costs and benefits o f a prosocial response by using a
kind of"bystander calculus?' A differential rural-urban proso-
cial response should be expected to the extent that costs and
benefits are perceived in different ways in these different envi-
ronments.
Given these intuitively appealing theoretical works, a pri-
mary task of this project, then, is to evaluate rural and urban
helping rates as they are affected by subject disposition, situa-
tional context, or both and to attempt to see this phenomenon
more clearly through a data-based theoretical framework. A re-
lated theoretical necessity is the definition of "rural" and "ur-
ban" using the criterion of population size and a subsequent
examination of the relationship between these numbers and
helping rate. Again, as an aid to the theoretical understanding
of the phenomenon, it is helpful to assess the predictive power
of population indicators alone and to fit the revealed relation-
ship into a data-based model. Finally, a more precise under-
standing of the dependent measure of interestwhelping behav-
iormmay also serve to direct attention to relevant explanatory
variables. The investigation of potential moderator variables
such as type of behavior requested and victim characteristics
may clarify the R - U phenomenon.
The form of the present investigation is that of a statistical
review of all available literature. Thirty-five studies have been
located that address the issue of rural-urban differences in help-
ing behavior; these include 65 tests of this R - U hypothesis. This
body of literature has examined conceptually similar variables
and allows reliable application of the statistical procedures used
in meta-analysis. Meta-anaiytic procedures allow reviewers to
provide more precise and confident conclusions than are possi-
ble with a "literary review" (Cooper, 1979), in which conclu-
sions are drawn from one's overall impressions gathered from
reading studies without applying statistical techniques. Among
other information, meta-analysis allows computation of the
overall probability that the pattern of results in a set of studies
was due to chance, an overall effect size estimate, and a figure
regarding the number of additional nonsupportive studies
347
needed to reverse the meta-analytic conclusion. The present re-
view applies these procedures to the rural-urban helping litera-
ture in order to integrate findings objectively. No meta-analytic
review of the R - U hypothesis is available in the literature at
present, although less comprehensive literary reviews (Amato,
1983; Korte, 1980) are available for comparison purposes.
The goals of the present review may be summarized as fol-
lows: (1) to examine the R - U literature, defining (a) the overall
probability of a rural-urban difference in helping behavior, (b)
the size of this effect, and (c) a confidence level that the research
reviewed accurately represents all (fugitive) documents; (2) to
examine a number of factors that may influence and help to
explain the R - U phenomenon; (3) to tie this statistical sum-
mary to a theoretical network; and (4) to identify gaps in our
knowledge and to point to necessary areas for future research.
At this point, I might add that Amato (1983) has provided
an excellent introduction to this task. He surveyed 18 previous
tests of the rural-urban hypothesis and identified specific meth-
odological problems apparent in the overall research picture.
In an attempt to remedy some ofthese issues (most specifically,
the previous nonrandom choice of communities examined and
the lack of representative samples of helping behaviors and
community characteristics), Amato designed and conducted six
additional tests of the hypothesis. He reported an overall trend
in his six tests that supported the notion of a lower rate ofproso-
cial responsiveness on the part of urban dwellers, with the major
decline in helping rate beginning in communities of 20,000
people. Amato's inquiry into various samples of helping behav-
iors indicated a tendency for small-town (rural) dwellers to be
more helpful across a range of helping situations that require
informal, casual, spontaneous behavior and less helpful in help-
ing situations that require highly formal and planned behavior
(such as filling out a census form). Thus, Amato's ambitious
work (including the Pierce & Amato, 1980, taxonomy of help-
ing behaviors) has provided a helpful framework for further in-
vestigation of the R - U hypothesis.
Method
Sample
An extensive search of the psychological literature was conducted to
obtain the most complete set of hypothesis tests possible for inclusion
in the analysis. Several steps were taken to locate potential studies, the
first being a computer search of two abstract services, PsycINFO and
SOCIALSCISEARCH~Next, a manual search of PsychologicalAbstracts,
Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index. Monthly Catalog
of U.S. Government Publications. and the library book catalog was un-
dertaken. Subsequently, a complete search of relevant references cited
by any of the previously located articles was performed. Finally, authors
of primary articles were contacted by mail and asked to send any rele-
vant works, published or unpublished. The final sample included 32
published reports, 2 convention papers, and I unpublished report. Pos-
sible selection bias in published studies was a concern and, as will be
discussed later, was partially addressed through calculation of a fail-
safe N.
An individual study was selected for inclusion in the review if the
author(s) defined the study as a test of the difference in rural versus
urban helping behavior and used a helping measure as the dependent
variable. At this initial point in the reviewthe range of helping behaviors
was quite diverse, including 17 separate behavioral categories ranging
348 NANCY MEHRKENS STEBLAY
from simple requests (e.g., give time of day) to quite demanding pleas
(e.g., help an injured pedestrian). Similarly, the rural-urban compari-
son was operationally defined differentially by various authors as a sub-
ject versus a context factoI; and the size of communities defined as rural
or urban differed from study to study. In all but two eases, the R - U
hypothesis test was clearly a key concern of each of the studies; the re-
maining two studies (Darley & Latant, 1968; Korte, 1970) addressed
the question only as a minor point but still in a manner relevant to this
work. Although it was not a criterion for inclusion, all studies did define
the "victim" (or requester) as a stranger.
The final sample consisted of 65 sets of data testing the R - U hypothe-
sis, from 35 empirical reports representing 14,221 subjects. The review
covered those studies available as of September 1985.
Statistical Analysis
Z score. Following the work of Rosenthal (1984), I calculated an
overall probability level associated with the observed pattern of results
by combining Z scores of individual tests of the hypothesis. Calculations
involved computing an exact (one-tailed) probability level for each test
of the hypothesis, finding the corresponding Z score for each, summing
these Z scores, and dividing by the square root of the total number of
tests being combined, The probability level associated with this ob-
tained overall standard normal deviate (Z~t~) then defined the likeli-
hood that the overall pattern of the data was generated by chance.
Given the convention of reporting imprecise p values (e.g. "p < .05"
o r " n o significant difference"), it was necessary to calculate a more pre-
cise value for each test through reconstruction of the data or by return-
ing to other statistics reported within the article. Recovery of sample
sizes and proportion ofbelping responses per condition allowed calcula-
tion of Z tests for the difference between proportions. For some studies,
contact with the authors was necessary to obtain such information. For
those tests (n = 8) in which retrieval of data was not possible, a conserva-
tive policy (Rosenthal, 1984) was followed: Reports of the absence of
significant main effects that were not accompanied by test statistics were
reconstructed as p = .50; reports of significant main effects with no
statistics available were reconstructed as p = .05.
Following the technique of Beaman, Cole, Klentz, Preston, and
Steblay (1983), I calculated three summary standard normal deviates
(Z scores) with the sample. The overall Z score as just discussed (Z~t~)
provided an unweighted estimate of the overall probability level. In ad-
dition, a Z score was calculated that included weighted individual test
Zs (Z~vr~).A weighting by sample size of the study provided an estimate
of population parameters that allowed greater emphasis on larger sam-
ples (with accordingly more reliable estimates).
A final weighted Z (ZMF) was computed using fractional weights
equivalent to the reciprocal of the number of tests contained within
each study. This weighting technique essentially adjusted for the nonin-
dependence of hypothesis tests within single studies.
Study characteristics. Several methodological and theoretical charac-
teristics were recorded. Among the methodological were date of publi-
cation, source (published, convention paper, unpublished manuscript),
author, number of hypothesis tests per study, and sample size.
Theoretical characteristics included population location, population
size, type of helping behavior, and experimenter and subject age (adult/
child) and sex. Type of helping behavior was coded by using two for-
mats: (a) the Amato (1983) throe-dimension taxonomy (dimensions in-
clude formal-informal, serious-nonserious, active-passive) and (b) a
simple list based on the 17 mutually exclusive categories encompassing
all of the behaviors from studies included.
Effect size. The effect size computed for each hypothesis test is the
coefficient recommended by Cohen (1977) for use when testing differ-
ences between proportions. This arc sin index (0 = 2 arc sinVP) corre-
sponds to effect size indices for other statistical tests in that the transfor-
marion results in differences between 0s that are equally detectable re-
gardless of the relative sizes of the proportions. In its simplest form, the
combined effect size of all studies is calculated as an arithmetic mean.
For this review, the mean effect size thus represents the overall impact
of the rural-urban variable on helping behavior.
A number of considerations are important, however, before the over-
all effect size is computed. First, Hedges (1984) has shown the standard
effect size estimator (g) of an individual study to be biased with respect
to population effect size, particularly in studies with small sample sizes.
The recommended correction (c,), however, is not suitable for effect size
estimators based on differences between proportions (h), as in this study.
Thus the correction was not advised or calculated in this review
(Hedges, personal communication, September 1985). It might be noted,
however, that the mean sample size in this selection of studies was 236;
thus the threat of this bias seems minimal.
A second step recommended by Hedges (1984)ma test of homogene-
ity of effect size--was also limited by the statistic (h) used in this review.
The direct calculation as recommended did not provide evidence of sig-
nificant differences in effect sizes across this group of studies. If existing,
such differences would violate assumptions about common sample
effect sizes and promote misleading conclusions about the population.
However, because of the questionable validity of this specific test for use
when dealing with differences between proportions, a distribution of
effect sizes was also generated as an alternative indicator and in fact
proved to be useful. This step indicated groupings of studies with like
effect sizes that could later be compared to subsets of data that had been
grouped for theoretical reasons.
Finally, studies included in this review had different sample sizes. Be-
cause the variance of an effect size estimator is a function of sample
size, individual effect size estimates will vary in accuracy from study to
study. To adjust for this, the effect size indicator was calculated with
individual effect sizes weighted by the reciprocal of the effect size vari-
ance and the summation of these values divided by the sum of the
weights. This procedure is considered analogous to that offered by
Hedges (1981) for mean differences and is appropriate for effect sizes
based on differences between arc sin transformed proportions (see Bea-
man et al., 1983). In the remainder of this article, reference to "mean
effect size" denotes the weighted mean computed as above.
In four cases, reported information was not adequate for calculation
of the effect size indicator h. In these cases a rough estimate of h was
obtained through calculations of other estimators (d or 0). Due to the
imprecise nature of this calculation, care was taken in subsequent analy-
ses to note the impact of these figures on overall results generated.
Fail-safe N. In conjunction with the computation of the recta-ana-
lytic normal deviate, a fail-safe N was calculated following the proce-
dure of Rosenthal (1978). This method results in an estimate of the
number of additional tests showing a summed null relationship ( Z score
of zero) that would be needed in order to increase the probability figure
attained through the meta-analysis to a point beyond the desired level
of significance. Although the works reviewed did cover a wide spectrum
of publishing outlets, only three studies were unpublished. In addition,
a publication bias that favors confirming studies may exist. Thus the
fail-safe calculation is likely to be somewhat inflated but nevertheless a
best available estimate.
Results
Meta-Analysis 1: All Studies
The 65 experimental tests o f the R - U hypothesis yielded a
ZMA o f 13.15 (p < .0001), indicating a greater prosocial re-
sponse in the rural condition that was unlikely to have been
generated by chance alone. Weighting the individual tests by
their sample sizes produced a ZMN o f 8.48, still highly signifi-
 RURAL-URBAN HELPING
cant (p < .0001). A weighting based on the number of tests per
study produced ZMF = 6.26 (p < .0001). Thus the R - U differ-
ence in helping behavior appears to be strongly evidenced by
this group of studies. This is further indicated by calculation of
the fall-safe N (Nvs). For ZMA, this figure is 4,089, which sug-
gests that this large number of unreported and unsupportive
studies would need to exist before the p figure would change to
a nonsignificant level. This well exceeds the tolerance level (335)
computed as directed by Rosenthal (1984). Even the smallest Z
derived (ZMF = 6.26) still generated an N ~ o f 877.
The effect size indicated for the group o f 65 tests is 0.23. This
is a relatively small effect size; however, in practical terms it
suggests that the mean helping rate moves from the 50th to the
59th percentile as urban versus rural environments are com-
pared. Thus on the average the helping rate of 16.33% of this
population is affected by this R - U variable (area of nonoverlap;
Cohen, 1977)) '2
Meta-Analysis 2: Pure Tests of the Rural-Urban
Hypothesis
As indicated previously, the inclusion of studies at the outset
of this review was quite unrestricted, the only criteria being that
a study be defined as a test of the rural-urban hypothesis and
that a helping measure be assessed as the dependent variable.
In reviewing the 35 studies, it became apparent that the defini-
tion of key variables differed among research teams. A first step
was then to identify the effects of differential variable definition
on study outcome.
Context~backgroundcomparison. An immediate task was to
operationalize the rural-urban variable, because the definition
of this key component differed among authors. More specifi-
cally, the primary mode of definition treated the context of the
study as the variable for comparison--that is, the helping test
took place either in a rural area or in the city. A much smaller
group of researchers )seated the comparison as a subject vari-
able, identifying a demographic variable, population of the city
of subject upbringing, as a critical factor (Bar-Tal, Raviv, &
Shavit, 1981; Bizman et al., 1978; Darley & Latanr, 1968; Gel-
fand, Hartmann, Walker, & Page, 1973; Hansson et al., 1978;
Holahan, 1977; Korte, 1970; Nadler, Romek, & Shapira-Fried-
man, 1979; Weiner, 1976). In both sets o f studies, of course,
these two factors may be somewhat confounded. Nevertheless
it appears important to review separately these two subsets of
data.
Thus analyzed, those 52 tests (from 26 studies) that defined
R - U as a context variable yielded a ZMA of 13.85, p < .0001,
an effect size of.29, a and an Nrs of 3,636. Quite different results
were obtained from those 13 tests that defined R - U as a subject
variable. This group of data produced the following figures:
ZMA = 1.70, p = .04, h = .00, Nrs = 1.4 Given these figures, it
appears that rural-urban differences in helping behavior should
be expected when the R - U variable is defined as a situational
variable, not necessarily when it is a subject factor.
A related issue in definition of the R - U variable was the size
of communities represented. Population figures varied greatly
between studies, with "rural" populations ranging from 400 to
99,999 and "urban" populations from 60,000 to 7+ million.
The meta-analytic calculations used researchers' definitions of
349
"rural" and "urban" when these were available; thus there was
some overlap between categories in midrange cities. It was also
necessary, however, to use some basic decision rules. On the ba-
sis, intuitively, o f a perceived trend and, more theoretically, on
the work of Amato (1983), I considered populations in the range
of 0-50,000 as rural and those in the 100,000+ range as urban.
In some studies, researchers collapsed multiple population con-
ditions, using this rule o f thumb to produce a single R - U com-
parison. "Medium-size" towns, which were defined and com-
pared as such (usually 50,000-100,000), were not included in
the primary analyses but were addressed in a subsequent analy-
sis to be discussed later.
Subject involvement. The dependent measure of helping be-
havior was conceptually defined in the majority of research re-
viewed as a subject's personal assistance to the requester's plea.
In contrast, six of the hypothesis tests (Bar-Tal et al., 1981; Biz-
man et al., 1978; Holahan, 1977) utilized paradigms in which
subjects were not asked to become personally involved in offer-
ing aid but rather were asked to verbally respond to a hypotheti-
cal scenario involving a person in need (e.g., judging the likeli-
hood that aid would be given by others or the appropriateness
of the requested behavior). Intuitively, this type of test does not
appear to be a clear test of the R - U hypothesis. Statistical analy-
sis generating a ZMA of 0.0 and an h of 0.0 reinforced this as-
sumption that these six tests represent a separate behavioral
phenomenon.
Elimination o f those (l 3) tests that failed to define the helping
or rural-urban variables in the normative (contextual) manner
should thus leave only "pure" tests o f the R - U phenomenon.
Such a group is represented by the 52-test subset discussed in
the previous section (ZMA = 13.85, h = .29), because the six
"hypothetical scenario" tests discussed above are included in
the 13 tests dismissed as noncontextual variables. Subsequent
analyses reported are based on this subset o f 52 pure hypothesis
tests.
Meta-Analyses of Subsets of Data
It is valuable to go beyond the original primary analyses to
seek information regarding relationships between various sub-
sets of the data. This allows investigation into both methodolog-
The average effect size estimate of those four studies for which h
could not be calculated directly was .83, obviously a much higher figure
than the .23 mentioned above. If these four studies are eliminated from
the above calculations of effect size, the end figures change very little,
however (N = 61, h = .21). In retrospect, it appears that the "rough"
estimates obtained for these four studies were inflated.
2 It might be noted that in the analysis, the weighted means differed
only slightly from the arithmetic mean (in this case, the arithmetic
mean was .26). Although the discrepancies between the two methods
appear to be slight, the magnitude is important, especiallywhen discuss-
ing small effect sizes, and the more precise estimate is preferred.
3 Area of nonoveflap is 20.59% mean rural helping rate at 61st per-
centile.
4 ZMFand ZMNwere also calculated for these and the following sub-
groups, typically resulting in a reduced ZMN and an even somewhat
smaller ZMF. However, such figures are reported only if they differ in a
noteworthy manner from the ZMA.
350 NANCY MEHRKENS STEBLAY
ical issues and theoretical underpinnings of the hypothesized
R - U relationship.
Published versus unpublished data. Forty-eight R - U tests
were located in published format, whereas only four unpub-
lished tests were found. The comparison of statistics from these
two subsets is quite striking. For the published tests, ZM^ =
14.12 (p < .000 l) and h =.30; for the unpublished tests, ZMA =
0.99 (p = . 16) and h = .04. The unpublished data are obviously
not supportive of the R - U difference, but this is not completely
surprising given a probable bias toward publication of signifi-
cant effects. The fail-safe figures also suggest another important
consideration: The unpublished set of tests presents a rather
shaky conclusion (Nvs = -3), whereas the published studies
stand rather firm (Nvs = 3,939), suggesting reasonably strong
confidence in reliance on this published sample.
Date of publication. There was a significant relationship be-
tween effect size and date of publication, with effect size increas-
ing with more recent date of publication (r = .29, p = .02). An
examination of mean R - U helping rates showed rural rates not
to be associated with publication date but urban rates declining
with time (r = -.15, p = . l 5).
Author of publication. Two independent researchers, Amato
and Korte, have made major research contributions to this re-
view sample. The work of each was analyzed as a subset.
Amato's combined work, with 12 tests of the hypothesis,
yielded a lower effect size (h = .19) than did the overall review
sample. Perhaps this lessened effect size reflects Amato's in-
tended diversity of sampled populations and behaviors. If
Amato's studies are removed from the sample, overall effect size
rises to .38. The work of Korte (9 tests) produced the opposite
pattern, a higher effect size (h = .42); however, if Korte's studies
are removed from the review sample, the effect size of the re-
maining studies does not change so dramatically (h = .25).
Geographicallocation of study. Only five countries are repre-
sented in the data. Tests conducted in the United States (n =
24) and those in Canada (n = 9) produced similar results, with
Z scores of 8.30 and 6.49, ps < .000 l, and effect sizes of.36 and
.32, respectively--these figures are a bit stronger than those of
the overall test sample. Israel (n = 2) also produced figures close
to the overall data, Z = 3.32, p < .0005, and h = .25; however,
NFs = 6. Australia (n = 1 l) generated a Z of 6.32 and an h of
914; Turkey (n = 3) produced the strongest figures, Z = 8.25,
h = .57; and Holland's three studies produced a negligible
effect, Z = -0.14, h = .0 l, Nvs = 0.
Direct~indirect request. The type of help required of bystand-
ers varied on two important dimensions, as discussed in this
and the next section. One such dimension involved the mode
of request: Was the plea made directly to bystanders, or was
the request never explicitly verbalized, even though supposedly
obvious? In both types of paradigms, the R - U difference in
helping was readily apparent (Z scores = 13.21 and 5.30, ps <
.0001, direct vs. indirect, respectively), and produced similar
effect sizes (h = .28, n = 32, Nvs = 2,034, and h = .30, n = 19,
NFs = 178, respectively).
Comparison of helping behaviors. The dependent variable of
each study was coded in two ways: (a) according to Pierce and
Amato's (1980) six-category (three bipolar dimensions) taxon-
omy of helping behaviors and (b) according to a simple list of
mutually exclusive behaviors, which with these 52 tests yielded
13 categories. For the purpose of identifying the relationship
between type of behavior required and helping responses in ru-
ral versus urban environments, the above subsets of studies were
examined (see Table l).
In all six Amato subsets, Z scores were significant (ps < .001),
which conveys the pervasiveness of the rural-urban difference
across quite different behavioral dimensions. Of particular in-
terest are the strong effect sizes generated by the poles of
Amato's serious-nonserious dimension (hs = .56 and .42, re-
spectively), which would suggest that the R - U difference is not
limited to trivial responses.
Experimenter and subject variables. The significant rural-
urban difference (p = .003) was apparent whether the experi-
menter (victim) was an adult or a child, male or female. How-
ever, the difference was more pronounced for male victims com-
pared with females (hs = .55 vs..38, respectively) and for chil-
dren compared with adults (hs = .54 and .39). The mean
helping rate associated with female victims (70%) was higher
than for male victims (42%), t(l l) = 2.54, p = .03, and child
and adult victims received help at approximately equal helping
levels (67% and 62%, respectively), t(35) = 9 p = .72.
All 52 samples included both male and female adult sub-
jects. Thus further subject variable analyses were not possible.
Relationship between population size and helping rate. A ba.
sic assumption regarding the rural-urban hypothesis is that as
community size grows, the likelihood of prosocial behavior to-
ward a stranger should diminish; thus a negative correlation
should exist between tx~ulation and helping rate. However, a
test of linear correlation for all population data points and their
corresponding percentage helping rates produced a correlation
coefficient o f - . 1 0 (p = .17) and thus very limited support for
the hypothesized relationship. A stronger association was found
between the population difference (rural versus urban) within
each hypothesis test and the effect size achieved in that test (r =
.33, p = .02). It appears that population level is related to the
helping rate but not in the direct manner initially assumed.
The lack of a strong negative linear relationship between
ulation size and helping rate is further indicated by a break-
down of the data into the subsets of rural and urban population
levels. Within the rural communities (0-50,000 residents) the
correlation is .28 (p = .04), actually a significant relationship
in the opposite direction from that predicted. In the urban com-
munities (100,000+), there is virtually no linear relationship
between population and helping rate (r = .02, p = .45), which
again does not support the expected pattern.
The overall pattern of the relationship between community
size and helping rate is displayed in Figure 1. The seven levels
of population size are based on Amato's (1983) five-level dis-
play, with further subdivisions added at the urban level (Levels
V and VI in the present figure)9
Community levels, population size, and numbers of commu-
nities represented at each level are shown in Table 2. It is note-
worthy that the relatively lower levels of helping in communities
of fewer than 5,000 residents are comparable to the level
achieved in the very largest cities. In urban communities the
mean helping rate is still as high as 84% at population sizes of
60,000-300,000; it then declines toward ranges closer to that of
the small towns. Also, if the data from medium-size communi-
ties of 50,000-100,000 (not included in the analyses to this
 RURAL-URBAN HELPING 351

Table 1
Comparisons of Helping Behaviors
Mean % helping rate
Amato (1983) code and
behavior code n ZMA h Nrs Urban Rural

Formal 4 6.59* .21 (2) 60 .76 .82

Participate in survey 4
Informal 2 2.99" .36 5 .53 .72
Correct overpayment 2
Serious 7 7.17* .56 126 .34 .59
Injured pedestrian 4 6.16* .56 52 .18 .45
Help lost child 3 3.90* .53 14 .56 .78
Nonserious 11 8.89* .42 (8) 311 .58 .74
Tell a color 1 4.34* .62 6 .55 .83
Change for coin 5 5.19" .39 45 .61 .75
Tell name 2 3.99* .38 10 .33 .51
Tell time 3 4.56* .37 20 .72 .84
Active 27 5.67* .14 (25) 294 .56 .62
Retrieve dropped item 5 0.69 .00 -4 .33 .36
Make phone call 7 3.70* .36 (6) 29 .70 .81
Return lost letter 9 3.08* .21 23 .46 .53
Give directions 6 3.60* - . t (5) 23 .79 .82
Passive 1 4.45* .76 6 .09 .40
Give donations 1

Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate number of studies included in calculations ofh if different from listed n. Not included are those with missing
data.
*p<.001.

point) are now examined, the mean helping rate of this group
(68%) fits easily into the pattern established by this figure.
Test of the bystander effect. A standard effect achieved in
emergency helping research (e.g., Darley & Latan6, 1968) is
that of a decreased likelihood of prosocial response as number
of bystanders increases. If urban areas are likely, just by virtue
of their overall population size, to have more bystanders present
in a given situation, then the lower helping rates of individuals
in urban areas may be attributable simply to the greater impact
of the bystander effect in that location. Ideally, a direct test of
this notion would involve a comparison of number of bystand-
ers and helping rates, across population levels. Although helping
rates are available from the present sample, this group of studies
was not constructed as tests of the bystander effect, and the lim-
ited reported information made it impossible to consider the
number of bystanders as a continuous variable. However, there
was enough information available to allow definition of most of
the studies as either "bystanders absent" or "bystanders pres-
ent?' In cases rated as bystander present, these potential helpers
had not intervened when the subject was tested, thus maximiz-
ing the likelihood of a bystander effect. In the cases judged by-
stander absent, each subject was led to believe that he or she
was the only available helper. Using this simple dichotomy, one
might predict that in those research paradigms in which by-
standers were present, an R - U difference in helping rate could
be attributed to differences in number of bystanders in the rural
versus urban context. However, a more critical comparison
would be between rural and urban helping rates within the
group of studies in which bystanders were not present. No R -

Table 2
Population Size and Numbers of Communities at Each Level
Level Population N

I <1,000 1
1I 1,000-4,999 4
III 5,000-19,999 23
IV 20,000-50,000 14
V 60,000-300,000 7
Figure L Mean percentage of subjects helping in communities VI 300,001-999,999 14
at seven levelsof population size. VII 1,000,000+ 29
 352 NANCY MEHRKENS STEBLAY
U difference would be expected, because the bystander effect
could not differentially affect this data. This was not the case.
Overall helping rates between the two subgroups were not sig-
nificantly different (Ms = .58 and .69, bystanders vs. no by-
standers, respectively), t(44) = 1.30, p = .20, and the R - U
difference was present in both groups: ZMA = 12.18, h = .30,
and NFS = 1,939 for bystanders, and Z ~ = 7.50, h = .36, and
Nr-s = 237 for no bystanders (ps < .001).
Discussion
Conclusions: Status of the Hypothesis
A prominent feature of the meta-analytic results is the robust
nature of the rural versus urban difference in helping behavior.
The highly significant difference between tested rural and urban
groups was apparent from the first overall analysis through the
many subset comparisons. Thus the difference in prosocial re-
sponse is clearly not merely a chance finding but rather a reli-
able behavioral difference. Although the data were largely lim-
ited to the published domain, the fail-safe N calculated lends
support to the credibility and generality of this sample of stud-
ies. Finally, the effect size generated is not of great magnitude
but is well within a theoretically consistent range given that the
rural-urban variable is only one of many that investigators rec-
ognize as influential in the generation of a prosocial response.
Theoretical Implications
Critical to theoretical understanding of the R - U phenome-
non is the operational definition of the effect. This recta-analysis
clearly shows that the predominant R - U effect is achieved
through a comparison of context, not an examination of per-
sonality, at least as personality has been defined as hometown
size. The notion of context as a causal variable is also supported
by results which reveal that behavior which subjects report as
appropriate in a hypothetical helping situation (which generates
no R - U difference) is not the same as the behavior produced
9 when subjects are actually confronted with the real-life situa-
tion. This finding may be construed as a demonstration that
subjects' good intentions may be compromised by the situa-
tional factors involved as the real-life scenario is played out. The
"urban personality" (Wirth, 1938) appears to be part of folklore
rather than of reality; the hypothesis that "country people are
more helpful than city people" is simply not supported by the
data. Rather, a more accurate statement is that "a stranger is
more likely to be helped in the country than in the city." With
this finding, the search for causal variables must narrow its fo-
cus to examination of situational influences.
These data reveal the role of the most salient contextual fac-
tor, population size, to be more complex than previously indi-
cated. Although a relationship exists between the size of the
population difference in tested rural and urban samples and the
subsequent effect size of the R - U helping rate, there is not the
anticipated direct inverse relationship between population and
helping rate. Rather, a positive relationship appears in nonur-
ban samples, whereas no linear relationship is apparent in ur-
ban samples. In a related vein, the data do not suggest that a
bystander effect is more likely to be a factor in cities than in
rural areas. This does not deny the power of the bystander effect
as a temporary inhibitor of prosocial behavior but rather sug-
gests that the simple presence of more people is not directly a
cause of the difference in helping rates between urban and rural
communities.
The present data offer some additional information as to
those situational variables that are associated with strength of
the R - U effect. For example, female requesters were helped at
all population levels more than were male requesters; requests
from males produced the greater R - U difference in prosocial
response. Also, certain helping requests were likely to generate
a greater R - U difference in behavior, especially those that were
either very trivial or very serious. Additional factors did not play
a role: The R - U effect was effectively generated through either
a direct or indirect help request and for either adult or child
requesters. Finally, geographical location produced only minor
variability in effect size (although this conclusion is based on a
limited sample). It appears that the variables discussed thus
far--population size, victim characteristics, type of helping re-
quest, geographical location--may simply operate as modera-
tor variables in the R - U phenomenon. They appear to exert
an impact but do not readily lend themselves as explanatory
variables. Research efforts must now identify the relevant di-
mensions of urbanism that more directly underlie the R - U
differences in helping response.
In a discussion of urban-nonurban differences in social be-
havior, Korte (1980) suggested that two complementary urban
models (Fischer, 1976; Milgram, 1970) may aid in our under-
standing o f the mechanisms of social contact between strangers
in the urban environment. The Milgram model stresses the
characteristics of the city, particularly the high levels of stressful
environmental input, that produce a generalized indifference to
needs of strangers. According to this analysis, a city dweller's
adaptive response to all types of outside stimulation is to ignore
what is nonessential to personal goals. With respect to social
stimuli, it is those unknown persons (i.e., strangers) with no ob-
vious claim on an individual's life who are most easily ignored.
It is important to note, relative to the data at hand, that the
nonresponsiveness to strangers that Milgram predicts is an
effect limited to interactions between persons lacking social ties.
Thus the quality or closeness of personal relationships is not
lessened in the city (as noted by Korte's, 1980, review of the
relevant data) even though interactions between strangers may
be substantially restricted. The Milgram model concurs nicely
with the present data in its focus on a context rather than a
subject variable as a causal factor in rural-urban behavior
differences.
Fischer's (1976) explanation of urban impact stresses the di-
versity of behavior and appearance that is likely to emerge in a
large city of heterogeneous population. Because an individual is
less likely to feel secure in the midst of many dissimilar others,
the expectation is that social interactions will be inhibited. Thus
the characterization of the needy stranger as a nonmember of
the reference group or as unfamiliar, deviant, or potentially
threatening produces nonresponsiveness of bystanders. Like the
Milgram (1970) model, the Fischer theory is appealing in its
recognition of the contextual origins of a social response. Per-
sonal subject factors may be outweighed by the presence of sa-
lient situational cues.
 RURAL-URBAN HELPING
Neither model can be critically tested with the present data,
because the majority of studies did not report either stimulus
load factors or subcultural patterns of the communities in-
volved. One comparison to the present data is quite relevant,
however. Both models specifically address the basic R - U
difference in helping response and also offer the means to ex-
plain the demonstrated relationship between population level
and helping rate. Milgram's (1970) model assumes that stimu-
lus load is likely to increase with population size but not neces-
sarily in a linear fashion. Thus there should be an indirect con-
nection between population and helping rate, but other indica-
tors--density and noise level--are more directly connected to
helping rate. The Fischer (1976) model is also conducive to a fit
with these data, in that it also may declare population size to be
only indirectly related to helping rate. This model assumes that
the sheer size of an urban population will foster those subcul-
tural differences that promote a nonhelping response. Thus ur-
ban-nonurban differences in helping behavior can be expected,
but the heterogeneity of the urban environment is seen as the
relevant factor rather than population size. In fact, helping rates
may be quite high in isolated areas of urban subcultural domi-
nance, as indicated by the work of Korte and Ayvalioglu ( 1981).
Perhaps this model might even be stretched to account for the
data by assuming that a spirit of kinship or likeness and subse-
quent helpfulness may develop with increasing population size
in rural to medium-size communities. Thus the key to under-
standing the data from within these two frameworks would be
an assessment of the stimulus load and homogeneity oftbe com-
munities tested.
A third model may also be relevant here. Piliavin et al. (1981)
suggested that in an emergency situation, the potential helper
chooses a response after a quick appraisal of perceived costs
and benefits. If the costs of providing help are greater than the
rewards of such behavior, the bystander is likely to pass respon-
sibility to others, to attempt escape from the unpleasant situa-
tion, or to distort perception of the actual need involved. As
with the previous two models, the size of the urban population
is not seen as a direct causal factor in the reduced helping rate
of urbanites. However, to the extent that perceived risk in-
creases with population and size, there may be an indirect con-
nection between population and helping behavior. Other than
in this limited sense, the Piliavin model does not well address
the population-belping relationship demonstrated in this study.
However, it does agree nicely with the revealed greater response
to female victims even in the city (as a salient low-risk group).
Finally, all three models may address the decreasing urban help-
ing rate across time. This effect may be a function of an increase
in the congestion of large cities (Milgram), the greater real or
perceived risk (Piliavin), and/or the increased diversity, real or
perceived (Fischer), in our present-day urban areas.
In comparing these three models, it seems unlikely that one
alone might explain complex urban behavior. It is more reason-
able to assume that urban and nonurban prosociai response is
affected by many contextual forces and cues. As illustration of
this complexity, the five-step model of helping behavior pro-
posed by Latan6 and Darley (1970) may be considered. This
model suggests that potential helpers must advance through five
cognitive steps before a prosocial response can be expected.
These steps include (1) attention to an event, (2) interpretation
353
of the event as an emergency, (3) acceptance of responsibility
for action, (4) decision regarding appropriate action, and (5)
action. On the basis of the Fischer, Milgram, and Piliavin theo-
ries discussed above, it may be expected that this five-step sce-
nario will be played out quite differently in the urban than in
the rural environment. First, the acquired nonresponse mode
oftbe city dweller as well as the excessive stimulation overall in
the city may make attention to an event less likely in that locale.
Perhaps even if noticed, the event may next be construed as a
common occurrence in the city rather than as an emergency
demanding personal attention. The Fischer model might fur-
ther enlighten us as to the dynamics of this process by suggest-
ing that a city dweller might only feel comfortable taking re-
sponsible action when certain about the appropriateness of his
or her response. This security may be difficult to come by if
social comparison reveals many dissimilar others besides the
unknown requester. Evaluation apprehension is likely, as well
as uncertainty as to whether the self is an appropriate help giver,
thus inhibiting helpful behavior at Steps 3 and 4. Finally, if the
ratio of perceived risks to benefits is greater for anticipated pro-
social intervention in the urban environment, the bystander's
decision to act at Step 4 would predictably be in favor of eseape
rather than intervention. The evaluation apprehension in the
presence of dissimilar others, mentioned above, may be just one
of those risks that become more salient in the urban context.
As noted earlier, this uncertainty of the potential helper, or per-
ceived risk, may be diminished if the event is encountered
within a subcultural neighborhood where strong norms for con-
duct and supportive resources are perceived.
In sum, the blending of these models appears appropriate as
the helping process is elaborated in future research. Although
the explanation of the R - U effect certainly is still speculative
regarding situational variables that directly foster it, these theo-
retical models, along with the present data, may guide us toward
future avenues of research. Consideration of factors characteris-
tic both of the physical and social environments is relevant. Sig-
nificant effects of environmental input factors (noise, density,
traffic level) have been noted (Korte & Ayvalioglu, 1981; Korte
et al., 1975; Krupat & Coury, 1975; Milgram, 1970; Rushton,
1978) along with related factors such as speed of activity (Gold-
man, Lewsandowski, & Carrill, 1982) and perceived vulnerabil-
ity to risk and crime (House & Wolf, 1978; Milgram, 1970).
Similarly, the impact of victim characteristics and of subculture
has been discussed in previous work (Fischer, 1976; Korte &
Ayvalioglu, 1981 ). If we assume that social behavior within the
city is determined through a complex process of interacting fac-
tors, a logical future step would be to assess the relative impact
of each and their interactions on helping responses. Amato's
(1983) research effort provides an example of how such re-
search might be approached. Amato attempted to assess the
impact on helping response of various community-level vari-
ables, including geographical isolation, tourism, residential sta-
bility, sex, age, and social class. These listed elements did not
contribute substantially to prediction; however, two additional
variables measured--heterogeneity of population and environ-
mental load--demonstrated the relationship with helping be-
havior predicted by the Fischer and Milgram models.
As a goal for future research, an effective explanatory vari-
able(s) should be able to account specifically for the R - U
354 NANCY MEHRKENS STEBLAY
difference in helping rate, as well as for the relationship between
population size and prosocial rate, and, in addition, should lend
insight into the reason for the increased effect size across time.
Comparison o f Meta-Analytic Conclusions With
Previous Literature
The theoretical review by Korte (1980), discussed earlier,
concurs with the findings of this review. Korte noted limited
support for the idea that an individual's personal background
(urban vs. nonurban) would predict prosocial response. Rather,
the data illuminate the urban-rural variable as a contextual fac-
tor and demonstrate strong evidence of its impact.
Perhaps the most conclusive empirical work prior to the pres-
ent meta-analysis was reported by Amato (1983). Some com-
parisons between the present work and that of Amato may be
helpful to clarify theoretical and methodological issues. With
his five field studies, Amato reported a clear trend for helping
rates to decrease as community size increased, with a major
decline in helping rate occurring at population sizes of about
20,000. The present meta-analytic review, on the other hand,
demonstrated a relationship between population size and help-
ing rate that is quite different. As noted earlier, the relationship
established was actually positive in the nonurban sample, with
a decline in helping rate only beginning at population sizes of
300,000. Thus the inclusion of more data in the meta-analytic
framework has produced conclusions at odds with Amato's
smaller sample. This difference is particularly relevant theoreti-
cally, because it necessitates a more complex explanation of R -
U effects.
A point needing further clarification concerns the category
of formal helping behavior. Amato reported that cooperation in
completing the census was greater in communities of 4,999-
300,000 than in very small towns. Although for Amato this was
an unusual trend, it actually concurs with the overall pattern of
helping response indicated by this review. The slightly increased
sample (n = 4) of the review also indicated that formal helping
behavior produced an effect similar to that of other behavioral
categories.
There are similarities in the data as well. Amato recorded
high helping rates for a simple request--for a favorite colorm
and for an unambiguous, easy request--giving directions. The
present review also demonstrated high rates of helping for these
requests. Similarly, both reports indicated a much lower level
of helping for a request that demanded help that was difficult or
costly to provide (hurt leg). Also, the five tests in this review
that involved retrieving a dropped item were, as in Amato's
summary, unusually poor at producing a helping response or
an R - U difference.
Finally, the present review must concur with Amato's report
of methodological weaknesses in the overall research sample.
Representative sampling of communities, subjects, and helping
behaviors was not common in the literature. This lack of sys-
tematic variations of key variables is perhaps most due to the
nature of the research; field settings lend themselves well to con-
venience samples rather than to perfect random selection. How-
ever, it must then be recognized that the conclusions drawn
must be limited in like manner. The R - U phenomenon has pri-
marily been recorded with pedestrian traffic in various U.S.,
Canadian, and Australian locales. It is not clear to what extent
the subject samples or helping behaviors investigated actually
represent the larger population of subjects and helping behav-
iors. The greater number of tests included in this review sample,
however, does add greater confidence to the conclusions.
This review does not address the need stated by Amato to
reduce reliance on city size as the sole indicator of urbanism.
This is due to constraints of the original studies rather than to
a failure of the review method. The present review, however,
does address a final methodological weakness of previous re-
search. It allows an assessment of the shape of the relationship
between urbanism and helping behavior, because it combines
139+ communities of varying sizes. Indeed, the pattern of this
relationship is a critically important outcome of the review and
points to the need to investigate alternative explanations for the
R - U effect.
In summary, the hypothesized difference in urban versus
nonurban helping behavior is strongly evidenced by the avail-
able research. This difference appears to be a function of situa-
tional variables rather than a subject factor; the array of such
context variables involved in the effect is not completely de-
fined but clearly includes both environmental and social char-
acteristics. It is hoped that future research can identify such
variables and also extend findings to a broader realm of helping
behaviors in a wider contextual setting.
References
Amato, P. R. (1981). Urban-rural differences in helping: Behavior in
Australia and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 114(2),
289-290.
Amato, E R. (1983). Helping behavior in urban and rural environ-
ments: Field studies based on a taxonomic organization of helping
episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 571-
586.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Shavit, N. (1981). Motives for helping behav-
ior: Kibbutz and city children in kindergarten and school. Develol~
mental Psychology, 17(6), 766-772.
Beaman, A. L, Cole, C. M., Klentz, B., Preston, M., & Steblay, N. M.
(1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research: A recta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181-196.
Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., Mivtzari, E., Shavit, R., Bar-Ilan, U., & Ramat-
Gan, 1. (1978). Effects of the age structure of the kindergarten and
altruistic behavior. Journal of School Psychology,, 16(2), 154-160.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A
recta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131-146.
Darley, J. M., & Latan~, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergen-
cies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychologg, 8, 377-383.
Fischer, C. S. (1976). The urban experience. New York:Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Gelfand, D. M., Hartmann, D. D., Walker, P., & Page, B. (1973). Who
reports shoplifting? A field-experimental study. JournalofPersonality
and Social Psychology,, 25, 276-285.
Goldman, M., Lewsandowski, H. E., & Carrill, R. E. (1982). Altruistic
behavior in rural and urban, residential and business areas. Basic and
Applied Social Psycholog'g, 3(2), 155-160.
Hansson, R. O., & Slade, K. M. (1977). Altruism toward a deviant in
city and small town. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 272-
279.
 RURAL-URBAN HELPING
Hansson, R. O., Slade, K. M., & Slade, P. S. (1978). Urban-rural differ-
ences in responsiveness to an altruistic model. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 105(1), 99-105.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass' estimator of effect
size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-
128.
Hedges, L. V. (1984). Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis.
In W. H. Yeaton & E M. Wortman (Eds.), Issues in data synthesis:
New directionsfor program evaluation (Vol. 24, pp. 25--42). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holahan, C. J. (1977). Effects of urban size and heterogeneity on judged
appropriateness of altruistic responses: Situational vs. subject vari-
ables. Sociomet~ 40(4), 378-382.
House, J. S., & Wolf, S. (1978). Effects of urban residence on interper-
sonal trust and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(9), 1029-1043.
Korte, C. (1970). Effects of individual responsibility and group commu-
nication on help giving in an emergency. Human Relations, 24, 149-
159.
Korte, C. (1980). Urban-nonurban differences in social behavior and
social psychological models of urban impact. Journal of Social Issues,
36, 29-51.
Korte, C., & Ayvalioglu, N. (1981). Helpfulness in Turkey: Cities,
towns, and urban villagers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,,
12(2), 123-131.
Korte, C., Ypma, I., & Toppen, A. (1975). Helpfulness in Dutch society
as a function of urbanization and environmental input level. Journal
of Personality and Social Psycholog2z, 32(6), 996-1003.
Krupat, E., & Coury, M. (1975). The lost letter technique and helping:
An urban-nonurban comparison. Paper presented at the 83rd annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Krupat, E., & Guild, W. (1980). Defining the city: The use of objective
and subjective measures for community description. Journal of So-
cial Issues, 36(3), 9-28.
(Appendix follows on next page)
355
Latan~, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Merrens, M. R. (1973). Nonemergency helping behavior in various
sized communities. Journal of Social Psychology,, 90(2), 327-338.
Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167,
1461-1468.
Nadler, A., Romek, E., & Shapira-Friedman, A. (1979). Giving in the
kibbutz: Pro-social behavior of city and kibbutz children as affected
by social responsibility and social pressure. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 10(1), 57-72.
Pierce, P. L., & Amato, P. R. (1980). A taxonomy of helping: A multidi-
mensional scaling analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 363-
371.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. E, Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., Ill. ( 1981).
Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 85, 185-193.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rotton, J. (1977). Sex, residential location, and altruism. Psychological
Reports, 40(1), 102.
Rushton, J. (1978). Urban density and altruism: Helping strangers in a
Canadian city, suburb, and small town. Psychological Reports, 43(3,
Pt. 1), 987-990.
Schneider, E W., & Mockus, Z. (1974). Failure to find a rural-urban
difference in incidence of altruistic behavior. Psychological Reports,
35(1, Pt. 1), 294.
Weiner, E H. (1976). Altruism, ambiance, and action: The effects of
rural and urban rearing on helping behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34(1), 112-124.
Wirth, I. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 44, 1-24.
356 NANCY MEHRKENS STEBLAY
Appendix
S t u d i e s I n c l u d e d i n t h e M e t a - A n a l y s i s ( N = 35)
Amato, P. R. (1978). City versus country: Friendliness and helping be-
havior in Queensland. Paper presented at the conference of the Socio-
logical Association of Australia and New Zealand, Brisbane, Aus-
tralia.
Amato, P. R. (1981). Urban-rural differences in helping: Behavior in
Australia and the United States. Journal of SocialPsychology, 114(2),
289-290.
Amato, P. R. (1983a). The effects of urbanization on interpersonal be-
havior: Field studies in Papua, New Guinea. Journal of Cross-Cul-
tural Psychology,, 14(3), 353-367.
Amato, P. R. (1983b). The helpfulness of urbanites and small town
dwellers: A test between two broad theoretical positions. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 233-243.
Amato, P. R~ (1983c). Helping behavior in urban and rural environ-
ments: Field studies based on a taxonomic organization of helping
episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 45(3), 571-
586.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Shavit, N. (1981). Motives for helping behav-
ior: Kibbutz and city children in kindergarten and school. Develop-
mental Psycholog~, 17(6), 766-772.
Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., Mivtzari, E., Shavit, R., Bar-llan, U., & Ramat-
Gan, I. (1978). Effects of the age structure of the kindergarten and
altruistic behavior. Journal of School Psychology,, 16(2), 154- t 60.
Darley, J. M., & Latant, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergen-
cies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,, 8, 377-383.
Feinman, S. (1978). When does sex affect altruistic response? Psycho-
logical Reports, 43(3, Pt. 2), 1218.
Forbes, G. B., & Gromoll, H. E (1971). The lost letter technique as a
measure of social variables: Some exploratory findings.Social Forces,
50, 113-115.
Forbes, G. B., Tevault, R. K., & Gromoll, H. E (1978). Honesty as a
function of geographic region and city size: Explorations of a thirty-
year old hypothesis. PsychologicalReports, 42, 647-652.
Franklin, B. J. (1974). Victim characteristics and helping behavior in a
rural southern setting. Journal of Social Psychology,, 93( 1), 93-100.
Gelfand, D. M., Hartmann, D. D., Walker, P., & Page, B. (1973). Who
reports shoplifting? A field-experimentalstudy. JournalofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 25, 276-285.
Goldman, M., Lewsandowski, H. E., & Carrill, R. E. (1982). Altruistic
behavior in rural and urban, residential and business areas. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology,, 3(2), 155-160.
Hansson, R, O., & Slade, K. M. (1977). Altruism toward a deviant in
city and small town. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology,, 7(3), 272-
279.
Hansson, R. O., Slade, K. M., & Slade, P. S. (1978). Urban-rural differ-
ences in responsiveness to an altruistic model. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 105(1), 99-105.
Holahan, C. J. (1977). Effects of urban size and heterogeneity on judged
appropriateness of altruistic responses: Situational vs. subject vari-
ables. Sociomet~ 40(4), 378-382.
House, J. S., & Wolf, S. (1978). Effects of urban residence on interper-
sonal trust and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,, 36(9), 1029-1043.
Korte, C. (1970). Effects of individual responsibility and group commu-
nication on help giving in an emergency. Human Relations. 24, 149-
159.
Korte, C., & Ayvalioglu, N. (1981). Helpfulness in Turkey: Cities,
towns, and urban villagers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
12(2), 123-131.
Korte, C., & Kerr, N. (1975). Response to altruistic opportunities in
urban and nonurban settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(2),
183-184.
Korte, C., Ypma, I., & Toppen, A. (1975). Helpfulness in Dutch society
as a function of urbanization and environmental input level. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 996-1003.
Krupat, E., & Coury, M. (1975). The lost letter technique and helping:
An urban-nonurban comparison. Paper presented at the 83rd annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
MeKenna, R. H. (1976). Good samaritanism in rural and urban set-
tings: A nonreactive comparison of helping behavior of clergy and
control subjects. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7(1),
58-65.
Merrens, M. R. (1973). Nonemergency helping behavior in various
sized communities. Journal of Social Psychology: 90(2), 327-338.
Nadler, A., Romek, E., & Shapira-Friedman, A. (1979). Giving in the
kibbutz: Pro-social behavior of city and kibbutz children as affected
by social responsibilityand social pressure. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 10(1), 57-72.
Rotton, J. (1977). Sex, residential location, and altruism. Psychological
Reports, 40(1), 102.
Rushton, J. (1978). Urban density and altruism: Helping strangers in a
Canadian city, suburb, and small town. Psychological Reports, 43(3,
Pt. 1), 987-990.
Schneider, E W, & Mockus, Z. (1974). Failure to find a rural-urban
difference in incidence of altruistic behavior. Psychological Reports,
35(1, Pt. 1), 294.
Solomon, L. Z., Solomon, H., & Maiorca, J. (1982). The effects of by-
stander's anonymity, situational ambiquity, and victim's status on
helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 117(2), 285-293.
Stem, T. D. (1974). A study of the relationships of helping behavior with
urbanism, sex, and socioeconomic status in two parts of the United
States. Dissertation Abstracts International 34( 1 I-B), 5564.
Takooshian, H., Haber, S., & Lucido, D. J. (1977, October). Who
wouldn't help a lost child? You, maybe. Psychology Today, pp. 67-
68, 88.
Weiner, E H. (1976). Altruism, ambiance, and action: The effects of
rural and urban rearing on helping behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social PsychologT,, 34( 1), 112-124.
Whitehead, G. I., & Metzger, S. C. (1981). Helping behavior in urban
and nonurban settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 114(2), 295-
296.
Yinon, Y., Sharon, I., Azgad, Z., Barshir, I., Bar-llan, U., Ramat-Gan, I.
( 1981). Helping behavior of urbanites, Moshavniks, and Kibbutniks.
Journal of Social Psycholog?g, 113( 1), t 43-144.
Received March 17, 1986
Revision received February 6, 1987
Accepted February 19, 1987 9