Posted on

classical conditioning and operant conditioning-1. Choose one term from the reading so far and write a post defining the term in your own words.

The most simple types of learning are classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Here is a cool video of scientists using instrumental conditioning with bees! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/bumble-bees-found-have-impressive-brain-power-trained-score/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Read the intro and first section of chapter 12 (ch 13 in the 11th edition) about studies in animals where they used techniques such as lesioning and numbing brain regions using cooling or drugs to see how conditioning was affected. This section of module 12.1 is called “Localized Representation of Memory”. brain scan series

Now read the section titled “Types of Memory in module and make sure you understand the terms.

1. Choose one term from the reading so far and write a post defining the term in your own words.

2. Reply to classmate’s post providing an example of the term they defined.

Posted on

child’s personality -what are some physical changes can be expected during childhood? According to McCoy (2015), your child will experience enormous physical improvements amongst preschool and adolescence. During this time, children turn out to be stronger and more coordinated

While a child’s personality is evolving their bodies are changing and growing. What are some physical changes can be expected during childhood? According to McCoy (2015), your child will experience enormous physical improvements amongst preschool and adolescence. During this time, children turn out to be stronger and more coordinated (McCoy, 2008). While preschoolers are just beginning to obtain a sense of physical independence, healthy 9-year-olds have typically developed the motor skills, balance, and coordination needed to perform most daily tasks without help (McCoy, 2008).
According to Melton (2013), a child amongst the ages of seven and twelve years is relatively independent when it comes to doing physical activities, and his or her coordination and stability continues to progress over time. Their figure is also going through many physical changes as they prepare to go in their teenage years. You may find yourself speculating what to expect from a child his age (Melton, 2013).
As our children grow physically and develop their distinctive personalities, their cognitive aptitudes are also evolving. Piaget’s Stage Theory talks about the development of thought and cognitive development. Piaget suggests that children’s thought progress go through sequences of four major stages: we will be most interested in stages 2-4 (Weiten, 2008, p.314-315).
• Stage 1- Sensorimotor Period (birth- two yrs old)- coordination of sensory input and motor responses; development of object stability (p. 315)
• Stage 2- Preoperational Period (2-7 yrs old)- development of symbolic thought marked by irreversibility, centration, and egocentrism (p. 315)
• Stage 3- Concrete Operational Period (7-11 yrs old)- mental operations applied to existing events; mastery of conservation, hierarchical classification (p. 315)
• Stage 4- Formal Operational Period (11- Adulthood)- mental processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical
• Stage 3- Initiative vs. Guilt (4-6 yrs old); am I right or am I wrong?
• Stage 4- Industry vs. Inferiority (6- Puberty); Am I capable or am I worthless?
While a child’s personality is evolving their bodies are changing and growing. What are some physical changes can be expected during childhood? According to McCoy (2015), your child will experience enormous physical improvements amongst preschool and adolescence. During this time, children turn out to be stronger and more coordinated (McCoy, 2008). While preschoolers are just beginning to obtain a sense of physical independence, healthy 9-year-olds have typically developed the motor skills, balance, and coordination needed to perform most daily tasks without help (McCoy, 2008).
According to Melton (2013), a child amongst the ages of seven and twelve years is relatively independent when it comes to doing physical activities, and his or her coordination and stability continues to progress over time. Their figure is also going through many physical changes as they prepare to go in their teenage years. You may find yourself speculating what to expect from a child his age (Melton, 2013).
As our children grow physically and develop their distinctive personalities, their cognitive aptitudes are also evolving. Piaget’s Stage Theory talks about the development of thought and cognitive development. Piaget suggests that children’s thought progress go through sequences of four major stages: we will be most interested in stages 2-4 (Weiten, 2008, p.314-315).
• Stage 1- Sensorimotor Period (birth- two yrs old)- coordination of sensory input and motor responses; development of object stability (p. 315)
• Stage 2- Preoperational Period (2-7 yrs old)- development of symbolic thought marked by irreversibility, centration, and egocentrism (p. 315)
• Stage 3- Concrete Operational Period (7-11 yrs old)- mental operations applied to existing events; mastery of conservation, hierarchical classification (p. 315)
• Stage 4- Formal Operational Period (11- Adulthood)- mental processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical
• Stage 3- Initiative vs. Guilt (4-6 yrs old); am I right or am I wrong?
• Stage 4- Industry vs. Inferiority (6- Puberty); Am I capable or am I worthless?
While a child’s personality is evolving their bodies are changing and growing. What are some physical changes can be expected during childhood? According to McCoy (2015), your child will experience enormous physical improvements amongst preschool and adolescence. During this time, children turn out to be stronger and more coordinated (McCoy, 2008). While preschoolers are just beginning to obtain a sense of physical independence, healthy 9-year-olds have typically developed the motor skills, balance, and coordination needed to perform most daily tasks without help (McCoy, 2008).
According to Melton (2013), a child amongst the ages of seven and twelve years is relatively independent when it comes to doing physical activities, and his or her coordination and stability continues to progress over time. Their figure is also going through many physical changes as they prepare to go in their teenage years. You may find yourself speculating what to expect from a child his age (Melton, 2013).
As our children grow physically and develop their distinctive personalities, their cognitive aptitudes are also evolving. Piaget’s Stage Theory talks about the development of thought and cognitive development. Piaget suggests that children’s thought progress go through sequences of four major stages: we will be most interested in stages 2-4 (Weiten, 2008, p.314-315).
• Stage 1- Sensorimotor Period (birth- two yrs old)- coordination of sensory input and motor responses; development of object stability (p. 315)
• Stage 2- Preoperational Period (2-7 yrs old)- development of symbolic thought marked by irreversibility, centration, and egocentrism (p. 315)
• Stage 3- Concrete Operational Period (7-11 yrs old)- mental operations applied to existing events; mastery of conservation, hierarchical classification (p. 315)
• Stage 4- Formal Operational Period (11- Adulthood)- mental processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical
• Stage 3- Initiative vs. Guilt (4-6 yrs old); am I right or am I wrong?
• Stage 4- Industry vs. Inferiority (6- Puberty); Am I capable or am I worthless?
While a child’s personality is evolving their bodies are changing and growing. What are some physical changes can be expected during childhood? According to McCoy (2015), your child will experience enormous physical improvements amongst preschool and adolescence. During this time, children turn out to be stronger and more coordinated (McCoy, 2008). While preschoolers are just beginning to obtain a sense of physical independence, healthy 9-year-olds have typically developed the motor skills, balance, and coordination needed to perform most daily tasks without help (McCoy, 2008).
According to Melton (2013), a child amongst the ages of seven and twelve years is relatively independent when it comes to doing physical activities, and his or her coordination and stability continues to progress over time. Their figure is also going through many physical changes as they prepare to go in their teenage years. You may find yourself speculating what to expect from a child his age (Melton, 2013).
As our children grow physically and develop their distinctive personalities, their cognitive aptitudes are also evolving. Piaget’s Stage Theory talks about the development of thought and cognitive development. Piaget suggests that children’s thought progress go through sequences of four major stages: we will be most interested in stages 2-4 (Weiten, 2008, p.314-315).
• Stage 1- Sensorimotor Period (birth- two yrs old)- coordination of sensory input and motor responses; development of object stability (p. 315)
• Stage 2- Preoperational Period (2-7 yrs old)- development of symbolic thought marked by irreversibility, centration, and egocentrism (p. 315)
• Stage 3- Concrete Operational Period (7-11 yrs old)- mental operations applied to existing events; mastery of conservation, hierarchical classification (p. 315)
• Stage 4- Formal Operational Period (11- Adulthood)- mental processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical
processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical thinking (p. 315)
With the combination of all the physical, emotional, and cognitive changes that occur throughout childhood there is the importance of knowing how a child develops moral cognitive. Kohlberg’s Stage Theory holds some merit when describing how a person develops moral cognitive over their lifespan. Kohlberg’s Model describes three levels of moral cognitive, each of which can be divided into two stages (Weiten, 2008, p.319).
• Pre-conventional Level o Stage 1- Punishment Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is punished o Stage 2- Naïve Reward Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is rewarded • Conventional Level
o Stage 3- Good boy/ right girl orientation- right and wrong is determined by close others’ approval or disapproval
o Stage 4- authority orientation- right and wrong is determined by society’s rules, and laws, which should be obeyed rigidly
• Post-conventional Level o Stage 5- Social Contract Orientation- right and wrong
is determined by society’s rules, which are viewed as fallible rather than absolute
o Stage 6- Individual values and conscience orientation- right and wrong is resolute by abstract ethical principles that emphasize equity and justice
Kohlberg wrote a paper in 1968 that evaluations the suggestions of the cognitive-developmental theories of Baldwin, Dewy, Piaget, and Vygotsky for preschool education (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1013). According to Kohlberg (1968), devotees for early cognitive stimulation would often reference Piaget’s ideas but become accustomed to suit their diverse viewpoints, such as Bruner, Oliver, and Hunt just to name a few(p. 1013). Piaget’s ideas are interpreted as reliable with the view that intelligence is a set of acquired information-processing skills and that any
processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical thinking (p. 315)
With the combination of all the physical, emotional, and cognitive changes that occur throughout childhood there is the importance of knowing how a child develops moral cognitive. Kohlberg’s Stage Theory holds some merit when describing how a person develops moral cognitive over their lifespan. Kohlberg’s Model describes three levels of moral cognitive, each of which can be divided into two stages (Weiten, 2008, p.319).
• Pre-conventional Level o Stage 1- Punishment Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is punished o Stage 2- Naïve Reward Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is rewarded • Conventional Level
o Stage 3- Good boy/ right girl orientation- right and wrong is determined by close others’ approval or disapproval
o Stage 4- authority orientation- right and wrong is determined by society’s rules, and laws, which should be obeyed rigidly
• Post-conventional Level o Stage 5- Social Contract Orientation- right and wrong
is determined by society’s rules, which are viewed as fallible rather than absolute
o Stage 6- Individual values and conscience orientation- right and wrong is resolute by abstract ethical principles that emphasize equity and justice
Kohlberg wrote a paper in 1968 that evaluations the suggestions of the cognitive-developmental theories of Baldwin, Dewy, Piaget, and Vygotsky for preschool education (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1013). According to Kohlberg (1968), devotees for early cognitive stimulation would often reference Piaget’s ideas but become accustomed to suit their diverse viewpoints, such as Bruner, Oliver, and Hunt just to name a few(p. 1013). Piaget’s ideas are interpreted as reliable with the view that intelligence is a set of acquired information-processing skills and that any
processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical thinking (p. 315)
With the combination of all the physical, emotional, and cognitive changes that occur throughout childhood there is the importance of knowing how a child develops moral cognitive. Kohlberg’s Stage Theory holds some merit when describing how a person develops moral cognitive over their lifespan. Kohlberg’s Model describes three levels of moral cognitive, each of which can be divided into two stages (Weiten, 2008, p.319).
• Pre-conventional Level o Stage 1- Punishment Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is punished o Stage 2- Naïve Reward Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is rewarded • Conventional Level
o Stage 3- Good boy/ right girl orientation- right and wrong is determined by close others’ approval or disapproval
o Stage 4- authority orientation- right and wrong is determined by society’s rules, and laws, which should be obeyed rigidly
• Post-conventional Level o Stage 5- Social Contract Orientation- right and wrong
is determined by society’s rules, which are viewed as fallible rather than absolute
o Stage 6- Individual values and conscience orientation- right and wrong is resolute by abstract ethical principles that emphasize equity and justice
Kohlberg wrote a paper in 1968 that evaluations the suggestions of the cognitive-developmental theories of Baldwin, Dewy, Piaget, and Vygotsky for preschool education (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1013). According to Kohlberg (1968), devotees for early cognitive stimulation would often reference Piaget’s ideas but become accustomed to suit their diverse viewpoints, such as Bruner, Oliver, and Hunt just to name a few(p. 1013). Piaget’s ideas are interpreted as reliable with the view that intelligence is a set of acquired information-processing skills and that any
processes applied to abstract ideas; logical, methodical thinking (p. 315)
With the combination of all the physical, emotional, and cognitive changes that occur throughout childhood there is the importance of knowing how a child develops moral cognitive. Kohlberg’s Stage Theory holds some merit when describing how a person develops moral cognitive over their lifespan. Kohlberg’s Model describes three levels of moral cognitive, each of which can be divided into two stages (Weiten, 2008, p.319).
• Pre-conventional Level o Stage 1- Punishment Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is punished o Stage 2- Naïve Reward Orientation- right and wrong is
determined by what is rewarded • Conventional Level
o Stage 3- Good boy/ right girl orientation- right and wrong is determined by close others’ approval or disapproval
o Stage 4- authority orientation- right and wrong is determined by society’s rules, and laws, which should be obeyed rigidly
• Post-conventional Level o Stage 5- Social Contract Orientation- right and wrong
is determined by society’s rules, which are viewed as fallible rather than absolute
o Stage 6- Individual values and conscience orientation- right and wrong is resolute by abstract ethical principles that emphasize equity and justice
Kohlberg wrote a paper in 1968 that evaluations the suggestions of the cognitive-developmental theories of Baldwin, Dewy, Piaget, and Vygotsky for preschool education (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1013). According to Kohlberg (1968), devotees for early cognitive stimulation would often reference Piaget’s ideas but become accustomed to suit their diverse viewpoints, such as Bruner, Oliver, and Hunt just to name a few(p. 1013). Piaget’s ideas are interpreted as reliable with the view that intelligence is a set of acquired information-processing skills and that any
a set of acquired information-processing skills and that any intellectual content can be taught early in the teaching style is adapted to the specific child’s cognitive level (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1014). Piaget’s ideas have been viewed as consistent with the notion that preschool educators should just let cognitive abilities grow and concentrate more on helping the child to adjust and develop emotionally (Kohlberg, 1968, p. 1014).
Bergman wrote a review of John C. Gibb’s Moral Development and Reality in 2006 for the European Journal of Developmental Psychology. He contends that Gibb’s book is the only sustained scholarly attempt to synthesize the major traditions in cognitive and affective developmental research and theory (Bergman, 2006, p. 300). According to Bergman (2006), this book articulates the critical synthesis of Kohlberg and Hoffman, reason and empathy, with proper attention to the parallel philosophical distinctions, respectively, of the right and the good, of justice and caring or beneficence (p. 300-301). Bergman believes that the book presents a persuasive case for treating moral agents as possessing both mind and heart, as whole persons increasingly responsible for their moral integrity (Bergman, 2006, p. 301).
According to Sullivan, McCullough, and Stager (1970), classical development theories have defined concepts of personality structure and structural development that distinguish them from alternative approaches (p. 399). Every one of the theories involves the proposition that individuals pass through an invariant sequence of qualitatively different stages or levels of structural development (Sullivan, McCullough, & Stager, 1970, p. 399). Sullivan, McCullough, and Stager (1970) discuss three specific theories in their article; Loevinger’s ego development, Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder’s conceptual-systems development, and Kohlberg’s development of moral judgment (p. 399). The theory we are interested in here is Kohlberg’s development if moral judgments.
Posted on

Integrating the Field of Developmental-Examine the physical changes associated with the selected developmental stage

PSY 605 WEEK 6 FINAL PAPER
Week 6 – Final Paper
Integrating the Field of Developmental Psychology: A Review of the Literature
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, review the age group / developmental stage you selected in Week Two of the course. Remember, you must use this age group / developmental stage.
You will then review the Developmental Psychology literature examining findings for that age group / developmental stage in terms of the physical, emotional, cognitive, social dimensions, and how they impact development and can best be used to meet developmental needs.  Additionally, create a summary of the developmental stage as viewed through the lens of one developmental theory we have studied across the course (Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, Freud’s Psychosexual Theory, Erickson’s Psychosocial Theory, etc.).
In your paper,
Examine the physical changes associated with the selected developmental stage.
Examine the cognitive changes associated with the selected developmental stage.
Examine the emotional changes associated with the selected developmental stage.
Examine the social changes associated with the selected developmental stage.
Evaluate the developmental changes and appraise the effects of the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social environments.
Integrate developmental and environmental factors into an assessment of developmental needs.
Create a summary of the developmental stage as viewed through the lens of a selected developmental theory.
Propose solutions for areas not addressed by the theory.
Analyze the ethical considerations for research and practice with the selected developmental stage.
The Integrating the Field of Developmental Psychology: A Review of the Literature
Must be 8 to 10 double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must use at least five scholarly sources in addition to the course text.
The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sourcestable offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment

Posted on

Developmental Stage Obervation And Paper-Write a 3- to 4-page detailed description of the young adult’s physical, cognitive, and psychosocial development. What would developmental theorists say about the cognitive and the psychosocial development of the young adult? In addition, include the following information:

Conduct a forty-five- to sixty-minute live observation of a young adult. In addition to conducting an observation, you may also choose to interview the young adult. Keep in mind the following guidelines:

  • Only use first names or pseudonyms in your paper.
  • Do not observe someone who is related to you.
  • Do not attempt to engage in a counseling role; this assignment strictly involves only observing or interviewing.

Write a 3- to 4-page detailed description of the young adult’s physical, cognitive, and psychosocial development. What would developmental theorists say about the cognitive and the psychosocial development of the young adult? In addition, include the following information:

  • Date, time, location, and length of observation
  • Age, sex, and race or ethnicity
  • Defining physical characteristics
  • Estimated socioeconomic status (SES)
  • Description of interaction with caregivers
  • Daily routine
  • Description of other relevant behaviors exhibited during observation
  • Any other information

Note that SES has a profound impact on development. You can estimate the SES level based on neighborhood, clothing, or automobiles.
Be sure to provide detailed examples and use multiple developmental theories to support your observations. Consider multicontextual influences on development. Also, provide a developmental prognosis and make service recommendations, if needed. Justify your recommendations with information from the textbook, recommended readings, and/or peer-reviewed journal articles.
If you determine no services are needed, provide a justification. For example, if the young adult you observe is not meeting the developmental milestones associated with young adulthood, provide suggestions for services that would promote healthy development.

Posted on

Cultural Activity PReport-Explain the importance of situating a society’s cultural and artistic expressions within a historical context

Assignment 3: Cultural Activity Report
Questions

Visit  a museum or gallery exhibition or attend a theater, dance, or musical  performance . The activity (museum or  performance) should have content that fits our course well. Have fun  doing this.

  1. Write a two to three (2-3) page report (500-750 words) that describes your experience.
    • Clearly identify the event location, date attended, the attendees, and your initial reaction upon arriving at the event.
    • Provide specific information and a description of at least two (2) pieces.
    • Provide a summary of the event and describe your overall reaction after attending the event.
    • Use  at least the class text as a reference (additional sources are fine,  not necessary unless required by your content). Your report should  include connections you make between things observed in your activity  and things learned in the course and text.
  • It  makes sense to approach a museum the way a seasoned traveler approaches  visiting a city for the first time. Find out what is available to see.  In the museum, find out what sort of exhibitions are currently housed in  the museum and start with the exhibits that interest you.
  • If  there is a travelling exhibition, it’s always a good idea to see it  while you have the chance. Then, if you have time, you can look at other  things in the museum.
  • Every effort should be made ahead of  time to identify a museum that has items and works one can easily  connect to our HUM 112 class and book. Since HUM 112 covers from 1600 AD  to the present, it makes more sense to focus on items from this time  frame. In general, museums with fine arts work better than history  museums.
  • Any questions about whether a museum-visit activity  fits the course and assignment well enough will be decided by the  instructor when the student seeks approval for the activity. Any  alternative activity outside the normal ones listed here, such as for  those limited by disability or distance, will be determined by the  instructor. Normally, we do not expect students to travel over an hour  to get to an approved activity.
  • Make notes as you go through  the museum and accept any handouts or pamphlets that the museum staff  gives you. While you should not quote anything from the printed material  when you do your report, the handouts may help to refresh your memory  later.
  • The quality of your experience is not measured by the  amount of time you spend in the galleries or the number of works of art  that you actually see. The most rewarding experiences can come from  finding two or three (2 or 3) pieces of art or exhibits which intrigue  you and then considering those works in leisurely contemplation. Most  museums have benches where you can sit and study a particular piece.
  • If  you are having a difficult time deciding which pieces to write about,  ask yourself these questions: (1) If the museum you are visiting  suddenly caught fire, which two (2) pieces of art or exhibits would you  most want to see saved from the fire? (2) Why would you choose those two  (2) particular pieces?
  • Check  your local colleges to see if there are any free or low-cost  performances or student recitals. Student performances are generally of  almost the same quality as professional performances, but typically cost  much less. However, performances of high school level or lower will not  meet this requirement.
  • Try to do a quality performance that fits the class subject matter well. Sorry—but  this is not for pop music or rock music, rap, country music, gospel  music, comedy routines, your kid’s dance recital, your international  friend’s wedding, high school plays, renaissance fairs, etc. Instead,  think of college level or professional recitals, string quartets,  symphony orchestras, opera, jazz, some stage dramas, etc. 
  • Any  questions about whether a performance activity fits the course and  assignment well enough will be decided by the instructor when the  student seeks approval for an activity. Any alternative activity outside  the normal ones listed here, such as for those limited by disability or  distance, will be determined by the instructor. Normally, we do not  expect students to travel over an hour to get to an approved activity.
  • Unlike  visiting a museum, where you can wear almost anything, people attending  performances are often expected to “dress up” a bit.
  • Take a  pen or pencil with you and accept the program you are offered by the  usher; you will probably want to take notes on it during or after the  performance.
  • Turn off your cell phone before entering the  auditorium. Do not use your phone to record the music or to take  pictures or videos. To play it safe, turn the phone off.
  • Most  long musical performances have at least one (1) intermission. If the  lights start blinking, it is the sign that the performance is about to  begin.
  • Look for very specific things (such as a particular  piece of music or the way certain instruments sounded at a specific  time) which tend to stand out as either enjoyable or not enjoyable. Be  sure to take notes of the things which you find enjoyable as well as the  things which are not enjoyable.

 
 

Posted on

Criminal Behavior in Your Community:Describe the typical perpetrator of this crime with regards to gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status. Compare and contrast the criminal and civil legal systems regarding penalties, burden of persuasion, and key players.

Assignment 2: RA: Criminal Behavior in Your Community
In Modules 1 and 2, you selected a type of criminal behavior that is of particular interest to you. Use the FBI’s UCR program to further investigate this behavior.
Using the information you have gathered in Modules 1 and 2, prepare a 4 page paper responding to the following using APA style:
The Crime is Burglary

  1. Describe the typical perpetrator of this crime with regards to gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status. Compare and contrast the criminal and civil legal systems regarding penalties, burden of persuasion, and key players.
  2. Using the information noted in step 1, explain the causes of this criminal behavior. Justify your answers by integrating at least one historical and two different contemporary psychological theories with your explanation.
  3. Compare and contrast criminal and civil legal systems in general regarding penalties, burden of persuasion and key players.

Please include a minimum of five scholarly peer-reviewed resources in your research.

Posted on

social roles and demographic attributes-The level of normative analysis was rejected as it related to benefactors, and variables associated with social norms were analyzed according to their state reference.


In relation to social roles and demographic attributes of benefactors, several trends appeared. Although altruism did not consistently relate to sex in children, adult males were found to act less altruistically toward highly (versus lowly) dependent others, especially if they seemed threatening. Altruistic females acted more altruistically toward highly dependent others. A fairly consistent increase in altruism with age was found in children. There was some indication that people from large families are more altruistic than people from small families. Social-class differences were also found. Members of the working class and entrepreneurial middle class tended to behave in accord with the norm of reciprocity. Bureaucratic middle classers, on the other hand, were more socially responsible. Finally, although some international differences were found, they did not form a general pattern. When it came to social roles of recipients, an examination of the effects of friendship status, ingroup affiliation, and social class suggested that people give to those who are similar to them, to those who are prestigious, and to those from whom they stand to gain.

The level of normative analysis was rejected as it related to benefactors, and variables associated with social norms were analyzed according to their state reference.

In relation to recipients, research was reviewed which supported Gouldner’s (1960) notions relating to the norm of reciprocity. An examination of what has been called generalized reciprocity demonstrated that the receipt of favors results in a general disposition toward altruism, in some situations. Although research was analyzed in the category of social norms, a state variable reference was assumed.

Considered as a whole, research on altruism has begun to identify general correlates and antecedents of particular beneficial behaviors. It has helped supply hints concerning socialization and the effect of judgments of altruism on everyday behavior. It has also cast light on important theoretical issues such as the viability of the psychoanalytic and reinforcement perspectives.

Philosophers were originally concerned with altruism because it related in an essential way to the nature of man. Although the methodology of current researchers is different, and their focus more specific, they are, in the final analysis, also trying to understand human nature. Many have welcomed the new research on the positive aspects of man, but it should be realized that the study of beneficial behaviors does not establish the existence of altruism. Elucidation of the phenomenon of altruism is, in fact, as capable of shaking the foundation of man’s self-conception as elucidation of such things as aggression and anxiety. Unfortunately, the fact that man acts altruistically does not mean that he is altruistic. The hopeful thing about research, however, is that at the same time as it sorts out antecedents, it identifies mechanisms that can lead to change.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, H. Bystander intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1968. Reported in J. M. Darley. The sharing of responsibility. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1967.

ALLPORT, G. W., VERNON, P. & LINDZEY, G. Manual for the study of values. (3rd ed.) Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1960.

ALMOND, G. A., & VERBA, S. The civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

ARONFREED, J. Conduct and conscience. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

ARONFREED, J., & PASKEL, V. Altruism, empathy and the conditioning of positive affect. Reported in J. Aronfreed, Conduct and conscience. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

ASCH, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority.

Psychological Monographs, 1956, 700, Whole No. 416).

BANDURA, A., & WALTERS, R. H. Social learning and Personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.

BERKOWITZ, L. Response to Stone. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 757—758.

BERKOWITZ, L. A laboratory investigation of social class and national differences in helping behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 231— 242.

BERKOWITZ, L. Judgmental standards in situational and sex differences in helping behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1967.

BERKOWITZ, L. Responsibility, reciprocity, and social distance in help-giving: An experimental investigation of English social class differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1968, 4, 46—63.

BERKOWITZ, L., & CONNOR, W. H. Success, failure and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 664—669.

BERKOWITZ, L., & DANIELS, L. Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 429-436.

BERKOWITZ, L., & DANIELS, L. Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: Effects of past help on the response to dependency relationships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 275-281.

BERKOWITZ, L., & FRIEDMAN, P. Some social class differences in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 217—225.

BERKOWITZ, L., KLANDERMAN, S., & HARRIS, R. Effects of experimenter awareness and sex of subject and experimenter on reactions to dependency relationship. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 327—337.

BERSCHEID, E., & WALSTER, E. When does a harmdoer compensate a victim? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 435—441.

BLAKE, R. R., BERKOWITZ, H., BELLAMY, R., & MOUTON, J. S. Volunteering as an avoidance act. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 1S4-1S6.

BLAKE, R., ROSENBAUM, M., & DURYEA, R. Giftgiving as a function of group standards. Human Relations, 1955, 8, 61-73.

BORANNAN, P. Social anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.

BREHM, J. W., & COLE, At H. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 420-426.

BRYAN, J. H., & TEST, M. A. Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 400—407.

BRYAN, J. H., & WALBEK, N. Words and deeds about sacrifice: Their impact upon children’s judgment and behavior. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Santa Monica, March 1969,

BRUNER, J. S. Social psychology and perception. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt and co., 1958.

BUDD, L. J. Altruism arrives in America. American Quarterly, 1956, 8, 40–52.

CAMPBELL, D. T. Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 1965, 13, 283-311.

CARLSMITK, J. M., & GROSS, A. E. Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, Il, 232—240.

CATTELL, R., & HOROWITZ, J. Objective personality tests investigating the structure of altruism in relation to source traits. A, H, and L. Journal of Personality, 1952, 21, 103-117.

CHARLESWORTH, R., & HARTUP, W. W. Positive social reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. Child Development, 1967, 38, 993—1002.

CRANDALL, V. D., CRANDALL, V. J., & PATROVSRY, W. A children’s social desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 27—36.

DANIELS, L., & BERKOWITZ, L. Liking and response to dependency relationships. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 141-148.

DARLEY, J. M. The sharing of responsibility. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. September 1967.

DARLEY, J. M., & LATANÉ, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 377383.

DARLINGTON, R. B., & MACKER, C. E. Displacement of guilt-produced altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 442— 443.

DURKIN, D. The specificity of children’s moral judgments. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1961, 98, 3-13.

EDWARDS, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference schedide. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1954.

EPSTEIN, Y. M., & HORNSTEIN, H. A. Penalty and interpersonal attraction as factors influencing the decision to help another person. Journal of ExPerimental Social Psychology, 1969, S, 272—282.

ERIRSON, E. H. Childhood and society. New York:

W. W. Norton & co., 1950,

FELDMAN, R. E. Response to compatriot and foreigner who seek assistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 202—214.

FISCHER, W. F. Sharing in preschool children as a function of amount and type of reinforcement. Genetic Psychological Monographs, 1963, 68, 215— 245.

FLOYD, J. Effects of amount of reward and friendship status of the other on the frequency of sharing in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1964,

FORM, W. H., & Nosow, S. Community in disaster. New York: Harper, 1958.

FREEDMAN, J. L., WALLINGTON, S. X, & BLESS, E. Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 117-124.

FREUD, A. The infantile instinct life. In H. Herma & G. M. Karth (Eds.), A handbook of psychoanalysis. New York: World Publishing Co., 1963.

FRIEDRICHS, R. W. Alter versus ego: An exploratory assessment of altruism. American Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 496-508.

FRISCH, D. M., & GREENBERG, M. S. Reciprocity and intentionality in the giving of help. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1968, 3, 383—384.

GERWITZ, J. L. Succorance in young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1948.

GOLDIAMOND, I. Moral behavior: A functional analysis. Psychology Today, 1968, 2, 31—34.

GORANSON, R., & BERKOWITZ, L. Redprocity and responsibility reactions to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 227— 232.

GORE, P. M., & ROTTER, J. B. A personality correlate of social action. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 58—64.

GOUGH, H. G., MCCLOSKEY, H., & MEEEL, P. E. A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal oj Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 73— 80.

GOULDNER, A. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 161-178.

GRUSEC, J. E., & SXUBISKI, S. L. Model nurturance, demand characteristics of the modeling experiment, and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.

HANDLON, B. J., & GROSS, P. The development of sharing behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 425-428.

HARRIS, D. B. A scale for measuring attitudes of social responsibility in children. Journal of Abnorntal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 322—326.

HARRIS, L. A. A study of altruism. Elementary School Journal, 1967, 68(3), 135-141.

HARRß, M. Some determinants of sharing in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1968.

HARTSHORNE, H., & MAY, M. A. Studies in the nature of character. Vol. 1. Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan, 1928,

HARTÜP, W. W., & COATES, B. Imitation of a peer as a function of reinforcement from the peer group and rewardingness of the model. Child Development, 1967, 38, 1003-1016.

HARTVP, W. W., & KELLER, E. D. Nurturance in preschool children and its relation to dependency. Child Development, 1960, 31, 681-689.

HEBB, D. 0., & THOMPSON, W. R. The social significance of animal studies. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Theory and method. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

H0LMES, S. J. The reproductive  of altruism. Psychological Review, 1945, 52, 109—112.

HORNSTEIN, H. A., FISCH, E., & HOLMES, M. The influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 222-226.

HOROWITZ, I. A. Effect of choice and locus of dependence on helping behavior. Journal of PersonaL ity and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 373—376.

KAUFMANN, H. The unconcerned bystander. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention o} the American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 387—388.

KIESLER, S. The effect of perceived role requirements on reactions to favor-doing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 198—210.

KOHLBERG, L. Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. I. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1964.

KOHLBERG, L. Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, in press.

KOHN, M. L. Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 64, 337—351.

KORTE, C. Group effects on help-giving in an emergency. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 4, 383-384

LATANÉ, B. The urge to help. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1967.

LATANÉ, B., & DARLEY, J. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 215— 221.

LATANi, B., & RODIN, J. A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental SoCia! Psychology, 1969, 5, 189—202.

LAVERY, J. J., & FOLEY, P. J. Altruism or arousal in the rat? Science, 1963, 140, 172—173.

LEEDS, R. Altruism and the norm of giving. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 1963, 9, 229-240.

LERNER, M. J., & LICHTMAN, R. R. Effects of perceived norms on attitudes and altruistic behavior toward a dependent other. Journat of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 226-232.

LERNER, M. J., & MATTHEWS, G. Reactions to the suffering of others under conditions of indirect responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 319—325.

MADDI, S. Personality theory—a comparative analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

MIDLARSKY, E. Some antecedents of aiding under stress. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 385-386. (a)

MIDLARSRY, E. Aiding responses: An analysis and review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1968, 14, 229— 260. (b)

MIDLARSXY, E., & BRYAN, J. H. Training charity in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psy”ology, 1967, 5, 408-415.

MILGRAM, S. A behavioral study of obedience. Journab of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 371-378.

MOWRER, O. H. Learning theory and the symbolic process. New York: Wiley, 1960.

MUIR, D., & WEINSTEIN, E. The social debt: An investigation of lower-class and middle-class norms of social obligation. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 532-539.

MURPHY, L. B. Social behavior and child Personality: An exploratory study of some roots of sympathy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937.

MURRAY, H. A. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.

NEWC0MB, T. M, The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 1956, 11, 575—586.

NIssEN, H. W., & CRAWFORD, M. P. A preliminary study of food-sharing behavior in young chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1936, 22, 383-419.

NOVAK, D. W., & LERNER, M. S. Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 147—152.

NUNNALLV, J. C. Popular conceptions of mental health. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961.

PIAGET, J. The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1932.

PRUITT, D. G. Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 143—147.

RAWLINGS, E. I. Witnessing harm to other: A reassessment of the role of guilt in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy”ology, 1968, 10, 377-380.

RETTIG, S. An exploratory study of altruism. Dissertation Abstracts, 1956, 16, 2229-2230.

RIBAL, J. E. Social character and meanings of selfishness and altruism. Sociology and Social Research, 1963, 47, 311-321.

RICE, G. E., JR. Aiding behavior versus fear in the albino rat. Psychological Record, 1964, 14, 165—170.

RICE, G. E., JR. Aiding responses in rats: Not in guinea pigs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September 1965.

RICE, G. E., JR., & GAINER, P. “Altruism” in the albino rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 123—125.

ROSENBAUM, M. The effect of stimulus and background factors on the volunteering response. Journaz of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53,

118—121.

ROSENBAUM, M., & BLARE, R. Volunteering as a function of field structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 193—196.

ROSENEAN, D. The origins of altruistic social autonomy. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1967.

ROSENHAN, D., & WRITE, G. M. Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 424-431.

ROSENTHAL, A. M. Study of the sickness called apathy. New York Times Magazine Section, May 3, 1964, 24.

ROSENTHAL, R. Experimental ejects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

ROTTER, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).

RUTHERFORD, E., & MUSSEN, P, Generosity in nursery school boys. Child Development, 1968, 39, 755—765.

SAWYER, J. The altruism scale: A measure of cooperative, individualistic, and competitive interpersonal orientation. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 71, 407—416.

SCHACHTER, S., & HALL, R. Group-derived restraints and audience persuasion. Human Relations, 1952, 5, 397—406.

SCHOPLER, J. An investigation of sex differences on the influence of dependence. Sociometry, 1967, 30, 50-63.

SCHOPLER, J., & BATESON, N. The power of dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 247-254.

SCHOPLER, J., & MATTHEWS, M. The influence of perceived causal locus of partner’s dependence on the use of interpersonal power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 609—612.

SCHOPLER, J., & TROMPSON, V. The role of attribution process in mediating amount of reciprocity for a favor. Journal of Personality and Social Psy”ology, 1968, 10, 243-250.

SHERE, M. Group influences upon the formation of norms and attitudes. In T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social Psychology. New York: Holt and Co., 1947.

SHURE, M. B. Fairness, generosity and selfishness: The naive psychology of children and young adults. Child Development, 1968, 39, 875-886.

SILVERMAN, L. W. Incidence of guilt reactions in children. Journal of Personality and Social PsychoJogy, 1967, 7, 338-340.

SKINNER, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press, 1953.

STAUB, E. The effects of success and failure on children’s sharing behavior. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., April 1968.

STAUB, E., & FEAGANS, L. Effects of age and number of witnesses in children’s attempts to help another child in distress. Paper presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1969.

STAUB, E., & SHERR, L. Need for approval, children’s sharing behavior, and reciprocity in sharing. Child Development, in press.

STONE, L. A. Soda] desirability correlates of social responsibility. JournaJ of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 756-757. (a)

STONE, L. A. Rejoinder to Berkowitz: Social desirability or social responsibility? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 758. (b)

SULLIVAN, H. S. An interpersonal theory of psychiatry, New York: Horton, 1953.

TESSER, A., GATEWOOD, R., & DRIVER, M. Some determinants of gratitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 233—236.

TEST, M. A., & BRYAN, J. H. Dependency, models and reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.

TOMKINS, S. S. The psychology of commitment: I. The constructive role of violence and suffering for the individual and for his society. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality. New York: Springer, 1965.

TORRANCE, E. P., & ZLLER, R. C. Risk and life experience: development of a scale for measuring risk-taking tendencies. (Rep. No. 57—23v) United States Air Force Personnel Training Research Report. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1957.

CURNER, W. D. Altruism and its measurement in children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 502-516.

UGUREL-SEMIN, R. Moral behavior and moral judgment of children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 463—474.

WALLACE, J., & SADALLA, E. Behavioral consequences of transgression: The effects of social recognition. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1966, 1, 187-194.

WALSTER, E., & PRESTHOLDT, P. The effect of misjudging another: Overcompensation or dissonance reduction ? Journal of Experimental and Social Psy”ology, 1966, 2, 85-97.

WHEELER, L., & WAGNER, C. M. The contation of generosity. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., April 1968.

WHITE, G. The elicitation and durability of altruistic behavior in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1967.

WHITE, R. W. Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. Psychological Issues, 1963, 3(3, Whole No. 11).

WODEHOUSE, H. Natural selfishness, and its position in the doctrine of Freud. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 1929, 9, 38—59.

WRIGHT, B. Altruism in children and the perceived conduct of others. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1942, 37, 218—233.

YERRES, R., & YERKES, A. Social behavior in infrahuman primates. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A handbook of social Psychology. Worchester, Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 1935.

(Received April 21, 1969)

Posted on

NORMS THAT AFFECT BENEFACTORS-Some investigators have suggested that people act altruistically because of the prescriptions of social norms. It has been suggested that altruism is regulated by two social norms—the norm of social responsibility, and the norm of giving. The level of analysis at which normative explanations occur is thought to be appropriate to sociological theory, but its contribution to psychological research is questioned.

NORMS THAT AFFECT BENEFACTORS


Some investigators have suggested that people act altruistically because of the prescriptions of social norms. It has been suggested that altruism is regulated by two social norms—the norm of social responsibility, and the norm of giving. The level of analysis at which normative explanations occur is thought to be appropriate to sociological theory, but its contribution to psychological research is questioned.

The Norm of Social Responsibility

Research has been reviewed which demonstrated that people tend to help those who are dependent on them. Berkowitz and his colleagues (e.g., Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963) attributed such helping to the influence of the ‘norm of social responsibility,” which prescribes that people should help those who need help. Normative analysis suggests that people act altruistically in particular situations because it is the proper thing to do.

The notion that people act in accord with normative standards of conduct seems quite sound as far as it goes. It would seem, though, that it does not go far enough. Although normative analysts (e.g., Berkowitz [footnoteRef:4] ) have criticized the explanatory circularity of reinforcement theory, the postulation of social norms can also end in tautology. A particular response, for example, can be predicted on the basis of a norm. If it occurs, the norm is said to have had an effect. If it does not occur, the situation is said to fall outside the range of the norm. In cases where the norm is established on the basis of the behavior it is supposed to predict, it is in the same position as Skinner’s (1953) reinforcer—its existence is established by the effect it produces. The danger with normative analysis is that norms can be invented post hoc to explain almost anything. Although Berkowitz has taken steps toward the specification of eliciting situations—dependency is said to evoke the norm of social responsibility—the increase in understanding supplied by the postulation of norms can still be questioned. Because it is assumed that the norm is internalized, and that it gains its power from its ability to evoke positive and negative affect, normative analysis ultimately contains a cognitive-affective base. Understanding of the effects of norms, it would seem, awaits elucidation of their cognitive-affective representations. At any rate, the methods used to study social norms should be different from the operations used to establish their effects. And once norms are identified, focus should shift to the dynamics of their internalization and the conditions of their effect. [4: Berkowitz, L. Beyond exchange: ideals and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, 1968.]

The Norm of Giving

When Gouldner (1960) outlined the range of what he called the norm of reciprocity, he mentioned some situations in which it did not apply. The situations contained one essential characteristic: They all involved dependent recipients such as the very young, the very old, and the sick. Leeds (1963) suggested that another norm applies in situations which are beyond the range of the norm of reciprocity. She called this norm the norm of giving, and suggested that situations in which the norm of giving was influential involved “role vacuums” or “social vacuums.” Role vacuums consist of nonprescribed opportunities for altruism. The “whore with a heart” is an example. Social vacuums occur in situations where institutionalized means of action are not available. Emergency situations are cases in point. In short, the norm of giving applies in situations where help is needed, but no institutionalized means of help is available.

Leeds’ (1963) concern, like that of Gouldner (1960), was with the sociological function of norms. Little psychological research has examined the norm of giving, even though it may have been antecedent to many altruistic situations.

NORMS WHICH AFFECT THE ALTRUISMELICITING CAPACITY OF RECIPIENTS The Generation of Debt and the Norm of Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity, as postulated by Gouldner ( 1960) , prescribes that people should help those who have helped them, and that people should not injure those who have helped them. Research pertaining to the effect of the norm of reciprocity is thought to relate to the altruism-eliciting capacity of recipients because in the prototypical experimental situation it is the generosity of the potential recipient that is varied. The fact that the generosity of the recipient is an attribute that he acquired in the role of benefactor does not alter the fact that the altruism-eliciting variable lies with the recipient. The characteristic of the recipient of importance here relates to his role as creditor. Implicit in the examination of research relevant to the norm of reciprocity is the notion of a less general level of analysis—one which identifies eliciting characteristics of recipients within the normative framework of their culture. The state variable reference of reciprocity, therefore, should be kept in mind.

It might, of course, be wondered whether the payment of debt constitutes altruism. According to the definition employed here (and, it is thought, the results of common attribution) strict reciprocity falls outside the range of altruistic behavior. Behavior which repays more than it owes, or repays favors that did not generate expectation of return, on the other hand, seems altruistic. A relatively undiscriminating examination of the research on reciprocity will be made, though, in the hope of elucidating general determinants of altruism, and, if nothing else, clarifying the distinction between reciprocity and altruism,

Research on the effects of reciprocity and altruism has examined two distinct relationships. The first is straightforward—it involves a recipient to whom something is owed. In the second situation, the owed recipient is not available for repayment, and payment is generalized to someone else.

As described by Gouldner (1960), the sociological purpose of the norm of reciprocity is to prevent exploitation of the weak by the powerful and to insure that people pay their debts. The force of the norm of reciprocity is variable according to (a) the need state of the original recipient (who becomes the benefactor), (b) the resources of the original donor (who becomes the recipient), (c) the motives imputed to the original donor, and (d) the extent to which the original donor gave of his own free will (p. 171). Gouldner ( 1960) recognized the fact that reciprocal behavior is usually expedient—the building of credit increases security. Research has demonstrated that all four factors influence reciprocity.

In the only sociological study relevant to Gouldner’s (1960) discussion, Muir and Weinstein (1962) tested the applicability of Gouldner’s (1960) model to the exchange of small favors. “Intensive interviews” showed that females from high and low SES thought that the magnitude of a debt was related to the original recipient’s need or desire (Gouldner’s point a) and to the resources of the original donor (Gouldner’s b). Females from the high SES thought debts were greater when the original favors were given freely (Gouldner’s d).

Other investigators, who used laboratory manipulations, supplied further support for Gouldner’s contentions. Goranson and Berkowitz (1966) found that undergraduate females did more work for supervisors after they received voluntary (but not compulsory) help from them, even though they did not expect to see them again (Gouldner’s d). Frisch and Greenberg (1968) found that undergraduate males who competed with a partner for two dollars were more likely to help him accumulate “proficiency credits” when they thought they had received a lot (versus a little) prior help, especially when the help was perceived as intentional (Gouldner’s d).

Pruitt (1968) offered further support for the effect of reciprocity, and for Gouldner’s point b. Male undergraduates gave more to a partner during a mixed-motive game when they had previously received a lot (versus a little) from him. They also gave more when they had received 80% of one dollar than 20% of four dollars. Strictly expedient expectations (using reciprocity as a tactic to get future favors) did not seem to be operative—subjects did not give any more to those who had large (versus small) future resources.

Studies on inappropriate favors (e.g., Brehm & Cole, 1966; Schopler & Thompson, 1968) supported Gouldner’s point c. Reciprocity was inhibited when the motives of the original benefactors were questioned.

Two studies extended the generality of the findings on reciprocity to children. Staub and Sherk (in press) found that fourth-grade children shared a crayon longer with children who had previously shared a lot (versus a little) candy with them. M. Harris (1968) found that fourth- and fifth-grade children gave to models who gave to them.

Limitations on the occurrence of reciprocal help-giving were revealed in several studies. Berkowitz and Friedman (1967), for example, found that although the norm of reciprocity seemed to influence the helping behavior of sons of middle-class entrepreneurs and workers, sons of middle-class bureaucratics were influenced by the norm of social responsibility. Floyd (1964) found that although children tended to increase the number of trinkets given to nonfriends after receiving a lot from them, they tended to decrease the number after receiving a lot from friends. Moreover, although selfish nonfriends elicited a decrease in giving, selfish friends elicited an increase. It would seem that the history of reciprocal exchanges between friends alters the set of expectations that governs the norm of reciprocity. It is also possible, of course, that friends planned to even up after the experiment.

Different Recipients—Generalized Reciprocity

Reciprocity refers to an obligatory bond between two people. In some cases, though, a third person is involved. When one person helps another person, then leaves the field, the recipient of the benefits may be more likely to help a third person. This behavior does not, as some investigators have assumed, constitute reciprocity, at least in the sense that Gouldner (1960) meant it. It is possible that the dynamics of owing are not operative at all. The norm of reciprocity prescribes that people should help those who help them—it says nothing about third parties. To remain consistent with the language of relevant investigators, the term generalized reciprocity is employed. It is meant as a descriptive, not an explanatory title.

Berkowitz and Daniels (1964) found that workers who received help from a confederate helped a highly dependent supervisor more than those who did not. The investigators interpreted these results as support for the hypothesis that the observation of helping increases the salience of the social responsibility norm, which results in further helping. It is also possible that those who were helped felt better, and the resulting positive affect mediated altruism. A further study (Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966) found some differences among voluntary-, compulsory-, and refused-help conditions. Workers in the voluntary-help (same person) condition produced more for their supervisors than workers in the other two conditions. Workers in the refused-help condition indicated that they did not think that people would expect them to work hard for their supervisors. A later study (Berkowitz & Friedman, 1967) found social class differences in generalized reciprocity. Boys from the entrepreneurial middle class (but not from the bureaucratic middle class or working class) worked hard for their supervisors after they received a lot of help— whether they thought they had received it from their supervisor or a different supervisor.

A study by Test and Bryan (in press) compared the effects of modeling, dependency, and generalized reciprocity on helping behavior in female undergraduates. Experimental conditions in which a model helped a third person, and in which the subject himself was helped, resulted in more subsequent helping than no-model and negative-model conditions. The investigators concluded that generalized reciprocity had little effect beyond that of modeling. The fact that situations which involve reciprocity also involve models suggests an overlap in determinants of altruism.

Although there may be limitations in certain social classes and with long range acquaintances, the bulk of the evidence supports Gouldner’s (1960) suggestion that people tend to return favors. They are most likely to reciprocate when the original benefactor gave something he needed, when he had little, when he was sincere, and when he gave voluntarily. Moreover, several studies found that when people are unable to contact their original benefactors, they are prone to give to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Although large segments of the research on altruism failed to supply consistent findings, several trends have appeared. New developments in reinforcement theory, and the rise of concern with the process of attribution have begun to supply new ways of looking at altruism. The concept, however, is still unclear and no way has been found to measure its motivational base.

Elucidation of antecedents of altruistic behavior has not awaited the specification of the phenomenon; operational definitions have supplied a way of bypassing the issue. Research projects have appraised the correlates and determinants of altruism from several different perspectives. Most research examined the effect of temporary states of the benefactor. Both positive affective states associated with success and competence, and negative affective states associated with harming another resulted in altruistic behavior. States associated with the observation of altruistic models also mediated altruistic responses. Although the bulk of studies on modeling seem best analyzed in relation to the temporary effect of models, some studies suggested that the observation of models leads to the acquisition of behavioral dispositions and personality traits.

Research which examined the effect of temporary states of the recipient suggested that the basic altruism-eliciting attribute of recipients is their dependency. The trait as well as the state of dependency was found to elicit altruism. In most cases externally caused dependency elicited more altruism than internally caused dependency, but in cases where the status of the recipient was seen as a potential threat, internally caused dependency elicited the greater amount of altruism. Besides dependency, interpersonal attractiveness of the recipient was found to relate to altruism. Although few studies purposefully manipulated the variable, it seems likely that interpersonal attractiveness incidentally influenced the responses of benefactors in many studies. Some studies, however, indicated that attractiveness and altruism do not always go together.

Studies which examined trait variables were plagued with difficulties. Because altruism is a positive trait, it is difficult to separate it from other positive characteristics. Although trait studies generally found that altruists were well adjusted, sociable, and unassuming people, the validity of their measures of altruism was usually in doubt. Studies which used behavioral measures of altruism were less likely than studies which used rating-scale and pencil-and-paper test measures to find trait correlates.

Posted on

Social Class and Group Affliation-women from high SES seemed most influenced by norms of reciprocity and exchange, while women from low SES seemed most influenced by considerations of "mutual aid" and the norm of social responsibility


Social Class and Group Affliation

Muir and Weinstein (1962) compared upper middle- and lower-class norms of social obligation. They found that although housewives from high and low socioeconomic strata (SES) reacted similarly in most situations, upper middle-class women were more likely than lower-class women to cut off the credit of dilatory debtors and to feel obliged to extrafamilial creditors. They viewed favordoing in an economic idiom: They were harsh creditors, and they tended to avoid the role of debtor. Members of low SES, on the other hand, tended to give when they were able. In general, women from high SES seemed most influenced by norms of reciprocity and exchange, while women from low SES seemed most influenced by considerations of “mutual aid” and the norm of social responsibility (as defined by Daniels and Berkowitz, 1963) .

Berkowitz and Friedman (1967) disagreed with the implications of the findings of Muir and Weinstein (1962). Categorizing members of the middle class as entrepreneurs or bureaucrats, Berkowitz and Friedman (1967) suggested that entrepreneurs are influenced by the norm of reciprocity (and tend, therefore, away from altruism) and that bureaucrats are influenced by the more altruistic prescriptions of the norm of social responsibility. Findings for entrepreneurs and bureaucrats were in accord with predictions: Entrepreneurial middle-class boys were most likely to think that “supervisors” would expect them to work hard after they (the subjects) received prior help. They were also most likely to help less after receiving a small (versus large) amount of prior help. Members of the bureaucratic middle class and members of the working class produced the same amount after receiving a little help and a lot of help. The findings relating to the working class, though, are not in strict accord with the findings of other studies. Two investigations suggested that members of the working class are not oriented to social responsibility. Almond and Verba (1963) found that the positive value of generosity and considerateness increased with education; and Kohn (1959) suggested that the working class is more concerned with immediate consequences of their children’s behavior than the inculcation of abstract moral principles.

More in accord with the Almond and Verba (1963) and Kohn (1959) studies are the results of a study by Berkowitz (1966 1968). Working-class boys from Oxford, England worked hardest for those who had previously helped them, especially when their helpers came from a different social class. Bureaucratic middle-class boys acted in accord with the norm of social responsibility. (It is interesting to note that Berkowitz was unable to get enough “entrepreneurial” boys for the experiment even though he offered to pay them for participating.)

In contrast to the suggestions of Almond and Verba (1963), however, Ugurel-Semin ( 1952) found that poor children from Istanbul were less selfish than children from middleclass or rich families. The middle-class children were least generous, and the children from rich families shared evenly least often. Sawyer (1966) also found that YMCA students of the lower middle-class (versus business school or social science students) indicated the greatest willingness to react generously to friends, strangers, and antagonists. Business school students indicated they were most prone to help themselves while hindering antagonists; and social science students were most oriented towards helping their friends.

International Differences in Altruism

Only two investigators (Berkowitz, 1966; Feldman, 1968) tested for international differences in altruism. Establishing international differences, of course, is a very large and general task—one which few investigators have been willing to tackle. Berkowitz (1966), while recognizing the difficulty of creating comparable international experimental situations, found some evidence that low SES boys from Oxford, England are more reciprocity oriented than their Madison, Wisconsin counterparts. No general differences in altruism, however, were found between countries.

Feldman (1968) found differences among the reactions of Bostonians, Parisians, and Athenians to requests for aid. Bostonians were the most likely to give directions to, and mail a stamped letter for, a compatriot. Although it made little difference to Athenians whether the letter contained a stamp or not (their rate of refusal was so high), Parisians and Bostonians were much less likely to mail a letter when it was unstamped.

The findings of Feldman (1968) are noteworthy because they contain the only convincing indication of large scale differences in altruism among international cities. The fact that no real trend appeared across experiments seems to indicate that altruism is largely a function of the specific situations, with people from different countries reacting more or less altruistically according to the circumstances surrounding requests for help.

Although the results of the Berkowitz (1966) and Feldman (1968) studies suggested international differences in altruism, it should be noted that a more conservative (and precise) interpretation would limit them to a comparison among cities. It is not known whether residents of most cities within England, France, Greece, and America would react to the experimental manipulations in the same way as residents of Oxford, Paris, Athens, Madison, and Boston.

In summary, the findings relating to social roles and demographic attributes of benefactors demonstrated that sex, age, ordinal position, social class, and nationality sometimes affect altruism. Although no clear sex differences were found for children, adult males were less prone to help highly dependent others (versus others of low dependency), especially when their status was threatened. Females, on the other hand, were more prone to help others when they were highly dependent. A fairly consistent increase in altruism was found with age. Some evidence suggested that although only children are not less altruistic than other-than-only children, children from large families are more altruistic than those from small families. Evidence was supplied which suggested that members of the bureaucratic middle class are oriented towards social responsibility, and members of entrepreneurial middle class to reciprocity. Working-class boys from Oxford, England also evidenced a reciprocity orientation.

In view of the fact that different situations tend to elicit different amounts of altruism and that people who share social roles differ along other dimensions, it is not surprising that general trends are not frequent. The trends that are found are usually difficult to interpret, and further, more precise, research is usually demanded.

SOCIAL ROLES AND DEMOGRAPHIC


ATTRIBUTES OF THE RECIPIENT

It is difficult to separate social roles of the recipient from interaction variables. Social roles such as foreigner and compatriot, ingrouper and outgrouper, friend and enemy imply a dual classification—the attributes of both benefactor and recipient are assigned. To say that the recipient is a friend, in other words, implies that the benefactor is also a friend. Once again the criterion relating to the experimental source of variation is evoked. The present section reviews studies which manipulated and measured social roles and demographic attributes of recipients.

Although it is likely that social roles and demographic attributes of the recipient such as age, sex, and ordinal position help elicit altruistic behavior, such attributes have not, as yet, been examined. Most studies have held them constant, or allowed them to vary randomly. The four social roles that have been studied are friendship status, ingroup affiliation, social class, and nationality.

Friendship as an Elicitor of Altruism

It would seem that a simple relationship between friendship and altruism should exist. As suggested by Daniels and Berkowitz (1963), “We learn that we can usually expect help from our friends if we need their aid but, similarly, we also know that we should help our friends if they are dependent upon us [p. 142] .” The relationship between friendship and altruism seemed so obvious to Sawyer (1966), in fact, that he validated his altruism scale by examining differences among altruism directed to friends, strangers, and antagonists. He found, as expected, that all groups in all experimental situations exhibited most altruism toward friends and least toward antagonists. Other studies, however, have found more complex relationships between altruism and friendship.

In one of the earliest experimental studies on altruism, Wright (1942) reported a somewhat counterintuitive finding. Third graders were more likely to give the more desirable of two toys to a stranger than to a friend. They were also more likely to favor a stranger when they were asked to serve as “umpires” and assign two toys of unequal attractiveness. Although the first finding was not replicated in a subsequent test, two experiments by Floyd (1964) also found a tendency for children to give less to friends than nonfriends in some situations. The Floyd (1964) experiments are not strictly comparable to those of Wright (1942), however, because Floyd’s nonfriend groups consisted of sociometrically neutral and disliked peers, and Wright’s nonfriend groups consisted of strangers. In the first experiment by Floyd (1964), friends were compared with ignored others; in the second experiment nonfriends were divided into neutral and disliked groups. It was found that nursery school children (Experiment 1) and first- to third-grade children (Experiment 2) gave more trinkets to friends than nonfriends. They tended, however, to decrease the amount given to friends after receiving many trinkets from them (statistically significant in Experiment 1, not significant in Experiment 2), and to increase the number given after receiving few (not significant in Experiment 1; p < .10 in Experiment 2) . The reverse occurred with neutral and disliked others: An increase occurred after receiving many trinkets (significant in Experiment 1, and for disliked others in Experiment 2), and a decrease occurred after receiving few trinkets (p < .10 in Experiment 1 and significant in the neutral groups in Experiment 2). Floyd (1964) interpreted his findings as support for a gain. loss model which was based on findings relating to level of adaptation. The model predicts that people act in ways that increase gains, and minimize losses, of interpersonal reward. In the two situations where expectations were met (a lot from a friend and little from a nonfriend) no gain was made in interpersonal rewards, so the amount reciprocated was reduced. When a little was received from a friend, it was interpreted as punishment for prior selfishness, and a lot was returned; when a lot was received from a nonfriend, it was interpreted as an invitation to friendship (and interpersonal gain), and a lot was given in return. This interpretation is consistent with the finding that some of the children in Wright’s (1942) study who gave to strangers explained their behavior by saying that they wanted to gain a friend.

A study by Epstein and Hornstein (1969) on undergraduates is of interest in this connection. Subjects who liked their partners made more self-sacrificial helping choices when they anticipated punishment (by a third party) for selfish responses than when they did not anticipate punishment. Subjects who disliked their partners, however, reversed this trend—they helped more when they did not anticipate punishment and less when they did. If the reciprocation of a few trinkets by friends is equated with punishment by a liked other, and the reciprocation of many trinkets by nonfriends with lack of punishment by a disliked other, the results of the Floyd (1964) and Epstein and Hornstein (1969) studies are comparable. Examination of the trend across trials in the Epstein and Hornstein study indicates that increments and decrements in giving were similar to those in the Floyd (1964) study.

Epstein and Hornstein (1969) offered several interpretations for their data, none of which explained it all. It is possible that different principles were in effect in different conditions. The finding that punishment (and loss of trinkets) elicited increments in altruism from friends was probably the result of the negative reinforcement of one choice in a two-choice situation. Punishment (and a few trinkets) indicates a potential loss of friendship. Punishment from an enemy, however, may have created a situation of antagonism in which the subject had the last word—he, in effect, got even. Reward (or lack of punishment) in relation to a nonfriend was probably interpreted as a gesture of friendship (much like a person extending his hand) and was, therefore, reciprocated. The reaction to reward from a friend, though, is difficult to interpret. It would seem that when friends behave generously they are taken for granted and their partners benefit themselves. Whether these interpretations are correct or not, it is interesting to note that the behavior displayed in these studies seems most easily explained from a reinforcement perspective.

IngrouP Affliation as an Elicitor of Altruism

Common experience demonstrates that people are more prone to give to people who are close to them than to people who are not. The sacrifices of one family member for another, or of a lover for his mate, for example, are expected to exceed those in other relationships. Some studies have examined the effect of ingroup affiliation on altruism. Friedrichs (1960) found that more altruism was directed toward ingroup recipients than outgroup recipients, especially when the benefactors were authoritarian. Campbell (1965) demonstrated that ingroup sacrifice was common in the face of outgroup threat.

The series of experiments by Feldman (1968) is relevant to the effect of ingroup affiliation on altruism. Foreigners can be considered outgroup members, and compatriots ingroup members. Feldman (1968) found that Parisians and Athenians were more willing to give directions to compatriots than foreigners, but that Bostonians treated them the same. Bostonians, however, were less likely to mail an unstamped letter for a foreigner than a compatriot. Hornstein et al. (1968), with American subjects, found that fewer wallets were returned to their owners when the finders were led to believe that a foreigner had found and relost the wallet than when they thought the previous finder was not foreign (i.e., was similar to them). In some situations, then, compatriots are helped more, but in others (especially in Athens) foreigners are given most help.

Social Class as an Elicitor of Altruism

Although most of the research on class differences focused on the social class of benefactors, some research suggests that recipients from the working class tend to elicit less help than middle-class recipients. Questionnaire responses in the Berkowitz and Friedman ( 1967) study indicated that middle-class boys were more attractive than working-class boys to peers of both classes. Entrepreneurial middle-class boys who received little prior help from a working-class partner worked less hard for a working-class (versus middle-class) supervisor. In general, though, most help was given to partners of the same social class. In Oxford, England (Berkowitz, 1966, 1968) working-class boys tended to work hardest for middle-class supervisors. Middle-class partners, on the other hand, worked least hard for working-class partners. The trends, however, were not consistent throughout conditions.

In summary, several studies suggest that potential recipients are sometimes more likely to elicit benefits when they are friends, ingroupers, and members of the same social class and nationality as benefactors. Other studies, though, suggest that nonfriends, outgroupers, foreigners, and members of higher social classes elicit more altruism. It is posSible that the seemingly contradictory findings support the same general principle. Studies on interpersonal attraction may offer a clue. Daniels and Berkowitz (1963) and Epstein and Hornstein (1969) manipulated interpersonal attractiveness by varying similarity between potential benefactor and recipient. Other studies (e.g., Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1956; Novak & Lerner, 1968) have found that similarity results in attraction. Friendship and ingroup affiliation imply a sharing of roles, a similarity, as does congruity between social class. The evidence suggests that the more similar the potential recipient is to his benefactor, the more likely he is to elicit altruism, unless the benefactor is in a position of prestige. When more was given to nonfriends, outgroupers, and members of different social classes, it may have been because the recipients were of high prestige, and, therefore, also attractive. Whether because of similarity or prestige, then, the attractiveness of the recipient may have elicited altruism.