Hiya Vs. Malasakit: Navigating Social Hesitation in the Presence of Menstrual Taboos

This study examined bystander responses and intervention behaviors when witnessing a female decoy with a visible menstrual stain in a public setting. Utilizing a naturalistic field observation design, the researchers investigated how the taboo nature of menstrual stains influences a bystander's willingness to intervene, their hesitation, their response time, and their chosen mode of assistance. A total of 10 naturally observed public bystanders (N = 10) participated across various community locations. Bystander demographic characteristics—specifically age, sex, and generational group—were recorded during post-observation debriefing to analyze potential differences in helping behavior. To examine the demographic association between bystander sex (male, female) and generational group (Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z), a 2 x 3 Fisher Exact Probability Test was performed. The statistical analysis revealed a non-directional, two-tailed probability value of p = 0.60 Based on these specific statistical findings, the null hypothesis could not be rejected, leading to the main conclusion that there is no significant demographic relationship or association among the observed sample. Ultimately, the study highlights the complexity of public helping behaviors and social discomfort surrounding highly taboo bodily experiences.

Baby Boomers, Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha

1. Fisher 2x3. (n.d.). http://vassarstats.net/fisher2x3.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Roberts, T., Goldenberg, J. L., Power, C., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). “Feminine Protection”: The Effects of Menstruation on Attitudes towards Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and bystander behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Johnston-Robledo, I., & Chrisler, J. C. (2013). The menstrual mark: Menstruation as social stigma. Sex Roles, 68(1–2), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0052-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Comparative Study of Adjustment Level, Parental Income and Academic Achievement of Adolescent Girls
• Increase in STIs among Adolescents in Masvingo District
• A Correlation between SDG 4 (Quality Education) and Emotional Disposition of Teacher Educators in Hyderabad District
• Ear Piercing Behaviour and Self-Esteem among Male University Students in Nigeria
• A Study of Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being