53% of the people who had been preparing GS talks offered some kind of help (10/19). 29% of the people preparing non-GS talks stopped to help (6/21).
Wait, surely that means people who prepared a GS talk were 1.8x more likely to help than those with an alternative topic? Oh no, says the report. The difference was not significant at the p<0.05 level.
Isn’t the first category larger than the second? (“some kind of help” vs “stopped to help”)
How many of the 10 GS people who “offered some kind of help” did the “help indirectly” thing (score of 2 on the 0-5 scale)? How many of the 15 non-GS people who did not stop to help did help indirectly?
Sorry, that’s my poor phrasing—the 53% and 29% are directly comparable. 10⁄19 GS people scored 2-5, compared to 6⁄21 non-GS.
From the report:
The percentages of subjects who offered aid by situational variable were, for low hurry, 63% offered help, intermediate hurry 45%, and high hurry 10%; for helping-relevant message 53%, task-relevant message 29%.
Isn’t the first category larger than the second? (“some kind of help” vs “stopped to help”)
How many of the 10 GS people who “offered some kind of help” did the “help indirectly” thing (score of 2 on the 0-5 scale)? How many of the 15 non-GS people who did not stop to help did help indirectly?
Sorry, that’s my poor phrasing—the 53% and 29% are directly comparable. 10⁄19 GS people scored 2-5, compared to 6⁄21 non-GS.
From the report:
I’ve changed the phrasing in the OP.
Got it, thanks!