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.

February 21, 2018

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

Explain the importance of situating a society’s cultural and artistic expressions within a historical context.
Examine the influences of intellectual, religious, political, and socio-economic forces on social, cultural, and artistic expressions.
Use technology and information resources to research issues in the study of world cultures.
Write clearly and concisely about world cultures using proper writing mechanics

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.

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.

February 21, 2018

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

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.
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.
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.

February 21, 2018

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)

February 21, 2018

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.

February 21, 2018

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.

February 21, 2018

Disney company: Global Organization-Describe the firm’s General Environment (the 6 elements that disrobe a company –technological change, demographic trends, cultural trends, the economic climate, legal and political conditions, and specific international events)

W9 -RP

This paper should be written on a Fortune 500 Global Organization that requires scholarly inquiry and substantiation of credible information. Choose a company that has ventured in a strategic alliance. follow this structure:

3. Background of the company – Disney
4. Conduct internal analysis based on 3 topics – this would be topics covering
a) (RBV) resource-based view
b) VRIO four questions of Value, Rarity, Imitability, Organization
c) the four VRIO questions unveil the competitive advantages the company possesses.
5. Conduct external analysis based on topics external topics such as
a) Describe the firm’s General Environment (the 6 elements that disrobe a company –technological change, demographic trends, cultural trends, the economic climate, legal and political conditions, and specific international events) choose the 2-3 of the strongest elements that apply to Disney
b) Apply some concepts of the Structure-conduct-performance model (S-C-P) to Disney’s (Threats of new competition, threats among existing competitors, threat of substitute products, threat of supplier leverage, threat of buyers’ influence) choose 2-3 of the strongest elements that apply to Disney
6. Describe the 3 main business strategies the Disney follows –one of the 3 business strategies would need to relate to productive strategic alignment relationships
7. The companies Disney has strategically partnered with
a) Hewlett Packard alliance
b) Havaianas Sandals alliance
c) Kimberly-Clark alliance
d) Panasonic alliance
8. Compare and contrast diversification strategies – use reference to the alliances mentioned 4
9. Explain international influence in foreign markets on Disney – tie in an alliance example
10. Analyze ethical concerns in the past 20 years that have affected stakeholders-– tie in an alliance example
11. Annotate substantiate findings from financial statements and make recommendations- tie in alliances from 4

February 21, 2018

Contemporary Organizational Behavior: From Ideas to Action-Discuss why diversity is important to organizations

What diversity management practices and methods might help the D4D program? What communication practices might be used to communicate better the goals of the D4D program?
Contemporary Organizational Behavior, From Ideas to Action
Topic Summary 11 (Diversity and Communication)

Discuss why diversity is important to organizations.
Describe and provide examples of different types of diversity.
Present three approaches to communication: the sender-receiver model, the co-orienting model, and the conversational learning model.
List the challenges of communication and the importance of information literacy.
Outline the process for developing a targeted message and how storytelling can be an effective form of communication.
Apply concepts of diversity and communication to organizations.

February 21, 2018

dependencyThe more the benefactor yielded, the less he kept for himself.- discuss

The notion that dependency elicits helping behavior in the Berkowitz type of situation has not received full support from other studies (outlined in Table 4). Schopler and Bateson (1965, Experiment 2 and 3) and Schopler (1967) found that females yielded more money to a partner when he was in a state of high (versus low) dependency, but only if the cost of yielding was low. Males in the low cost of yielding condition, on the other hand, yielded more money when their partner was in a state of low dependency. In a different situation, Schopler and Bateson (1965, Experiment 1) found that although females were more inclined to volunteer to help a student finish his thesis when he was “desperate,” males were more inclined to help when he had a year to work on it (p < .10). The measure of altruism in the Schopler studies seems more powerful than that in the Berkowitz studies because of the material sacrifice involved. The more the benefactor yielded, the less he kept for himself.

Other studies which involved a variety of situations, though, have supplied support for the notion that dependency in the recipient elicits altruism. Wheeler and Wagner (1968), for example, found that Navy men were more likely to donate money when they were exposed to a personal appeal which involved a highly dependent family than one which involved a condition of low dependency (p < .10). A study by Test and Bryan (in press) failed to find an effect for dependency. A posttest questionnaire, however, revealed that the dependency manipulation had failed. In a situation similar to that of Test and Bryan, Midlarsky (1968a) found that more help was given to a partner with broken eyeglasses than to a less dependent recipient, even though helping involved the receipt of electric shocks.

It should be pointed out that the dependency manipulations in the Schopler and Bateson (1965), Wheeler and Wagner (1968), Test and Bryan (in press), and Midlarsky (1968a) studies differed from those in the Berkowitz studies. In the Berkowitz studies the supervisor was specifically dependent on the worker—if the worker did not work hard, the supervisor did not get rewarded. In the Schopler and Bateson (1965, Experiment 1) and Wheeler and Wagner (1968) studies, on the other hand, the dependency of the other was general—each subject could have told himself that if he did not help, someone else would. The Midlarsky (1968a) and Test and Bryan (in press) studies fall in between. Subjects were not asked to help the dependent other, but they were the only ones who could help him.

Before turning to studies which manipulated interpersonal attractiveness of the recipient, it should be mentioned that dependency need not be viewed as a unitary variable. Studies by Schopler and Matthews (1965) and Horowitz (1968) demonstrated that internally caused dependency (dependency caused by the subject) tended to elicit less altruism than externally caused dependency. Locus of dependency, though, seems best examined as a trait variable.

Interpersonal Attractiveness of the Recipient Common sense would predict that more is given to liked others than disliked others. Because the prediction seems so obvious, perhaps, only three studies on altruism (Daniels & Berkowitz, 1963; Epstein & Hornstein, 1969; Staub & Sherk, in press) have manipulated interpersonal attractiveness as a main independent variable. The apparent paucity of research, however, may be misleading. It is possible that interpersonal attractiveness has exerted an unrecognized in-

STUDIES WHICH MEASURED THE EFFECT OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE

RECIPIENT ON ALTRUISM

Author and date

Subj ects

Sex Age N

Relationship between attractiveness and altruism

Daniels & Berkowitz (1963)

Staub & Sherk (in press)

Epstein & Hornstein (1969)

Berkowitz & Friedman (1967)

Schopler & Matthews (1965)

Brehm & cole (1966)

Kiesler (1966)

Schopler & Thompson (1968)

Walster & Prestholdt (1966)

Lerner & Lichtman (1968)

Lerner & Matthews (1967)

Lerner

Berkowitz & Daniels (1963)

M M

9 cs

13-16

345

120

140

Greatest production for highly dependent well-liked supervisors.

Crayon shared longer with preferred partners.

Liked recipients helped most when selfishness punished (vs. not).

Partners who gave high (vs. low) prior help rated as more likable and received more help, from entrepreneurial but not bureaucratic boys.

Externally dependent subjects rated in more attractive terms and helped more.

Subjects who did appropriate favor (vs. no favor) rated as more friendly (but not as generally more attractive) and received more help.

Partners who did not share after a cooperative (vs. competitive) game rated as unattractive.

“Salesman” who gave flower in appropriate (vs. inappropriate) circumstances rated as more generous (but not as more attractive).

Person who was rated too harshly in low commitment (vs. high commitment) condition was subsequently rated as more attractive; he also tended to elicit more help.

Partners who performed illicitly (vs. legitimately) gracious act were rated as less attractive and helped less. Attractiveness and helping did not go together in other conditions.

When subjects draw placed him in a control and his partner in a shock condition (vs. fates independent) partner was rated as less attractive, but was comforted more.

When subjects (vs. experimenter) caused their partners to serve in shock condition, partners were rated as less attractive, yet subjects were more prone to take their place.

High dependent (vs. low dependent) supervisors were helped more, but liked less.

fluence in other studies. Studies that manipulate characteristics of the recipient usually affect the attractiveness of the recipient. Table 5 contains an outline of studies which investigated the effect of interpersonal attractiveness on altruism.

Interpersonal attractiveness as an independent variable. Only three studies have focused on the altruism-eliciting effect of attractiveness of the recipient. Daniels and Berkowitz (1963) told “workers” that a questionnaire revealed they would either like or dislike their “supervisors.” As expected, the workers made more boxes for highly dependent supervisors when they thought they would like them than when they thought they would not. Staub and Sherk (in press) found that fourthgrade children shared a crayon longer with liked than with disliked partners.

In the third study, Epstein and Hornstein (1969) found a more complex relationship between liking and altruism. Subjects who liked their partners made fewer selfish responses than subjects who disliked their partners when they were punished for their selfishness by a third person. When they were not punished, however, they made fewer selfish responses for a disliked partner. Although the results are difficult to interpret, it is possible that punishment from a liked other served to remind the subjects of the harm their acts did. Punishment from a disliked other, on the other hand, may have antagonized them into more selfish behavior.

Interpersonal attractiveness as a mediating variable. It seems likely that most studies which manipulated characteristics of the recipient incidentally varied his interpersonal attractiveness. Recipients are usually more or less attractive depending on their association with moral transgression or need for psychological help (Bryan & Davenport 6 ; Nunnally, 1961), their race and nationality (Bryan & Test, 1967; Feldman, 1968), the legitimacy of their need (Frisch & Greenberg, 1968; Horowitz, 1968; Schopler & Matthews, 1965), and the amount of prior help attributed to them (Pruitt, 1968). Several of the Berkowitz studies (e.g., Berkowitz & Friedman, 1967) found incidental relationships between the amount of help given to supervisors and their rated attractiveness. Other studies, though (e.g., Berkowitz & Daniels , 1963), found a negative relationship between helping and attractiveness.

Research on the effect of inappropriate favors on altruism demonstrates that although recipients who are helped tend to be seen as more attractive than those who are not, the reverse is sometimes true. Kiesler (1966) found that partners who did appropriate favors were rated as more attractive than those who did inappropriate favors, but no measure of altruism was taken. Brehm and Cole (1966), Lerner and Lichtman (1968), and Schopler and Thompson (1968) found that inappropriate favors elicited less altruism than appropriate favors. They also found that recipients who had done appropriate favors tended to be rated more positively. But in every case, the recipients failed to be rated as better liked. Lerner and Lichtman ( 1968), however, found a positive relationship between selfishness and unattractiveness—recipients who seemed “illicitly gracious” were rated as unattractive and were helped little.

A final study, which set out to examine a dissonance effect, supplied some information

5 Bryan, J. H., & Davenport, M. Donations to the needy: correlates of financial contributions to the destitute. (Research Bulletin No. 68-1) Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968.

about attractiveness. Walster and Prestholdt (1966) found that subjects who increased their attractiveness ratings of targets in order to compensate for an unfair rating or justify a high rating tended to be more likely to volunteer to help the target person. Unfortunately, though, the imminence of summer vacation and final exams truncated their sample to the point that statistical analysis of the relationship between attractiveness and volunteering was not feasible.

Although there are suggestive indications that attractiveness mediates altruism, the relationship is surprisingly weak. Several studies, in fact, have found a negative relationship between helping and attractiveness. Lerner and Matthews (1967) and Lerner (see Footnote 4), for example, found that subjects who perceived themselves (versus their partner or an experimenter) as responsible for the suffering of another tended to devalue the other in order to preserve their belief in a just world. In spite of the devaluation, though, they were more willing than those who did not devalue their partners to take his place in a shock condition. It is possible that in cases where altruism is reparative or part of a role requirement, it is not given as much in behalf of the recipient as in spite of him.

PERSONALITY TRAITS OF THE BENEFACTOR

—CORRELATIONAL STUDIES

Research which has dealt with personality traits of benefactors differs from most of the research reviewed thus far because it is concerned with natural correlations rather than experimentally induced relationships. Traitoriented correlational studies (see Table 6) have used three different criteria of altruism. Some have defined altruism according to the ratings of others. Some have used scores on pencil-and-paper tests; and some have used behavioral measures. Personality variables in each of the three categories have been drawn from several different sources. Trait-oriented correlational studies attempt to find out what personality traits and syndromes are typical of altruists, and, in general, what kind of people altruists are.

STUDIES WHICH EXAMINED ‘I’llE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS OF ‘I’llE

BENEFACTOR AND ALTRUISM

Author and date

Subjects
Sex Age	N

Source of personality traits

Positive correlations with altruism

Negative correlations with altruism

Studies which used rating-scale measures of altruism

Turner (1948)

Cattell & Horowitz

(1952)

Friedrichs (1960)

MacDonald

9—16

116

280

Ratings of paren ts and social workers.

Dormmates’ ratings, 16 PFQ, “objective tests.”

Dormmates’ ratings, self-ratings, questionnaires.

Self-ratings; questionnaires.

Self-adjustment, grasp of social standards, social skills, good community relations, adjustment, emotional stability, ethical goodness. Cyclothymia

Attractiveness as a friend, political conservatism, authoritarianism, theism, sociability, ingroup involvement.

Need for nurturance, need for autonomy, social values, religious values.

Antisocial tendencies.

Paranoic-schizoid.

Economic involve. ment.

Economic values, political values.

Studies which used pencil-and-paper test measures of altruism

Friedrichs (1960)

Ribal (1963)

Saywer (1966)

280

194

122

Self-ratings, questionnaires.

Edwards Personal

Preference Scale

Questionnaire, occupational aspiration.

Church attendance, theism.

Need for endurance

(males) ; needs for affliation and interception (females).

YMCA orientation

Ethnocentrism, neuroticism.

Need for achievement and dominance.

Studies which used behavioral measures of altruism

Rutherford & Mussen

(1968)

Staub & Sherk

(in press)

Gore & Rotter (1963)

Midlarsky (1968a)

Staub (1968)

9-10

116

196

Doll-play ratings ; racing game; teacher’s ratings.

Need for approval questionnaire.

Locus of control questionnaire.

Dependency, kindness’.

Internal locus of control.

Internal locus of control (following success).

Hostility, competitiveness, gregariousness, quarrel-

someness,a aggressivenessa.

(Need for approval), activity.

Internal locus of control (following failure).

< .10.

February 21, 2018

STATES OF THE RECIPIENT-ALTRUISM AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPORARY

ALTRUISM AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPORARY

STATES OF THE RECIPIENT

When it is the temporary states of recipients of altruistic responses that are studied, the question that becomes relevant is what kinds of states, and what situations associated with these states, elicit altruistic responses. The range of recipient state variables that has been studied is small. Only two variables —dependency and interpersonal attractiveness—have been studied in any detail.

A close consideration of the effect of interpersonal attractiveness on altruism suggests that many altruistic responses result not from characteristics of benefactors or recipients alone, but rather from an interaction between the characteristics of benefactors and recipients. Recipients, for example, may be attractive to different benefactors for different reasons, and benefactors may differ in attractability. In the modeling studies, almost all recipients were dependent, and their dependency probably interacted with the modeling effects to elicit altruism. Even though characteristics of both recipients and benefactors influence altruism, they can be separated for classification due to the fact that most experiments vary one set of characteristics and hold the other constant.

Dependency of the Recipient

The essential attribute of a recipient of altruism is his perceived need for aid. In almost all of the reported studies on altruism, altruistic behavior was elicited by a dependent other. Most studies held dependency constant, or allowed it to vary randomly. Some studies, however, gave specific attention to the effect of dependency.

A set of ten studies (see Table 4) by Berkowitz and his colleagues found a consistent effect for dependency. All studies used the same basic experimental design. In the standard situation, subjects were recruited for an experiment on supervisory ability. A “worker” was required to construct paper boxes or envelopes for a “supervisor.” In the high dependency condition, the worker was told that the supervisor’s chance of winning a prize depended on the worker’s productivity. In the low dependency condition, the worker was told that it was the quality of the supervisor’s instructions that would determine his reward. The measure of altruism was either the number of boxes constructed in the experimental session, or the difference between the number constructed in the experimental session and the number in a practice session. Berkowitz and his colleagues (see Table 4) consistently found that more boxes were

4

STUDIES WHICH DEMONSTRATED THE EFFECT OF DEPENDENCY OF THE RECIPIENT ON ALTRUISM

Author and date	Subjects Age	Relationship between dependency of the recipient and altruism
Berkowitz & Daniels (1963) Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Daniels & Berkowitz (1963) Berkowitz & Daniels (1964) Berkowitz et al. (1964) Berkowitz & Conner (1966) Berkowitz (1966) Goranson & Berkowitz (1966) Berkowitz & Friedman (1967) Berkowitz (1967) Berkowitz (1968) Schopler & Bateson (1965) Wheeler & Wagner (1968) Midlarsky (1968a)	M M M M F M M M M	cs cs cs cs cs cs cs 13-16 cs 13-16 cs adult cs	80 32 80 80 160 108 89 345 192 196 144 80	More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness; no main effect for amount of reward. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; less produced in Low Awareness X Low Dependency condition. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; less in Low Awareness X Low Dependency; more in High Liking X High Dependency. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness; no effect for sex of subject or sex of experimenter. More produced for high vs. low (but not medium) dependent supervisor ; more produced in High Dependency X Success than High Dependency X Failure. Study later elaborated by Berkowitz & Friedman (1967) and Berkowitz (1968) ; see below. (High dependency condition only) More produced after voluntary vs. compulsory help for same (vs. different) person; least produced after refused help. (All in high dependency condition) ; sons of bureaucrats produced more than working-class boys; sons of entrepreneurs produced less after receiving low (vs. high) help from another. (1) : More produced for externally-caused high dependency. (2) : More produced for highly dependent others. (4) : Sexdifferences in high and low dependency condition. (All in high dependency condition) ; working-class boys (vs. bureaucratic boys) who received high (vs. low) prior help produced more for the same person. Males gave more to lowly dependent (vs. highly dependent) recipients, and females gave more to highly dependent recipients, when cost of helping was low. More tended to be given in order to help fly relatives to a dying sailor than to help build up a serviceman’s fund.a More shock-contingent problems were solved for high (vs. low) dependent recipients.

278 DENNIS L. KREBS

TABLE

284 DENNIS L. KREBS

TABLE

ALTRUISM 279

Note.—Abbreviations are: CS — college student.

built by workers in the high dependency condition than workers in the low dependency condition. One study (Berkowitz & Conner, 1966) created three levels of dependency— the supervisor was dependent on the worker for 20%, 50%, or 80% of the points that could earn him a cash prize. Workers whose supervisors were 80% dependent made more paper envelopes than those whose supervisors were 20% dependent.

It might be argued that the altruism shown by the workers was a function of expectations of approval or fear of disapproval. To test these possibilities, Berkowitz and Daniels (1963) and Daniels and Berkowitz (1963) added an “awareness” condition. Workers in the high awareness condition were told that their supervisors would be informed of their productivity during the experiment, and those in the low awareness condition were told that their work would not be examined until after a month. In no case was a main effect found for awareness. However, a combination of (low) dependency and (low) awareness was associated with low production. Moreover, production also failed to increase when the experimenter’s awareness was manipulated (Berkowitz, Klanderman, & Harris, 1964). Berkowitz interpreted the lack of difference between the productivity of the high and low awareness groups in the high dependency condition as support for the assumption that his workers were not motivated toward the attainment of approval or avoidance of punishment. It is also possible that the low awareness manipulation was ineffective. Subjects may have found it difficult to believe that their output would remain unexamined for a month.