UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness : effects on children’s helping behaviors Leung, Jupian Jupchung 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A2 L04.pdf [ 8.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095525.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095525-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095525-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095525-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095525-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095525-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095525-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095525-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095525.ris

Full Text

INDUCTION, RECIPIENT DESERVINGNESS AND PERSONALITY ATTRACTIVENESS: E F F E C T S ON CHILDREN'S HELPING BEHAVIORS by JUPIAN JUPCHUNG LEUNG A.B., C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , San D i e g o , 197T M.A., C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , San D i e g o , 1973 A T H E S I S SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y a nd S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r , 1981 J u p i a n J u p c h u n g L e u n g , 1981 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or pu b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Qct tf.tff  i i Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine i f induction (explaining and reasoning with children so as to be a l t r u i s t i c ) , children's perception of a potential recipient's deservingness of help and personality attractiveness influenced their helping behavior in the form of pledged and actual donations, and pledges to contribute written s t o r i e s . These three variables were chosen for study because they represent influences from two d i s t i n c t sources - a t h i r d party (person d e l i v e r i n g the induction) and the potential recipient. S p e c i f i c a l l y , induction represents a a d i r e c t attempt from a t h i r d party to influence the c h i l d while deservingness and personality attractiveness are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient that might be expected to exert influence on the c h i l d . Studying these three variables together permitted one to discern the unique and the interactive e f f e c t s of these sources of influences. A t o t a l of 195 boys and g i r l s in grades five and six were randomly assigned to one of eight treatment conditions - each subject was randomly given one of eight " s t o r i e s " to respond to - while the study was being conducted in their classrooms. Each story was a systematic combination of induction (induction vs. non-induction), deservingness (high vs. low), and personality attractiveness (high vs. low) treatments. Nine questions, designed to engage children's attention in the story and to serve as manipulation checks (process measures) and outcome/criterion (dependent) measures, were inserted in the appropriate locations of the story. i i i Subjects' scores from the Comprehension Test of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests and their responses to 10 relevant pre-experimental questions were obtained as possible covariates prior to treatment. Subjects f i r s t were paid 50 cents for doing some art work for a "foster-parent agency". They then read a "story" about an elderly person and later were given an opportunity to anonymously donate earnings to help and to contribute written stories to entertain that person. Multidimensional contingency table analyses of the process measures (manipulation checks) showed that the recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness treatments were functioning as expected and that: 1) a person with an a t t r a c t i v e personality was l i k e d and a person with an unattractive personality was d i s l i k e d by children; and 2) children perceived deservingness in terms of personality attractiveness such that regardless of deservingness, a person with an a t t r a c t i v e personality was perceived as more deserving than a person with an unattractive personality. A 4-way (induction x deservingness x attractiveness x gender) MANCOVA with subjects' indications as to how much they enjoyed writing stories as a covariate measure showed no r e l i a b l e multivariate main or interaction e f f e c t s but two r e l i a b l e univariate main e f f e c t s . They are: 1) main effect of personality attractiveness on subjects' pledge to donate earnings (recipient with an a t t r a c t i v e personality received more pledged donations than recipient with an unattractive personality); and 2) main effect of gender on subjects' pledge i v to contribute stories ( g i r l s pledging more than boys). The findings are discussed in terms of 1 ) "concrete" thinking of children and their l i k i n g and helping behaviors; 2) "cost" of helping as i t influences the helping behavior of children; 3) children's perception of deservingness in terms of personality . attractiveness; 4) "discrepancy" between "attitude" and "behavior" in children; 5) "saliency" of stimulus objects in research involving children; and 6) previous research findings on sex differences in helping behaviors. The implications of the results for education and for research and the l i m i t a t i o n s of this study are also discussed. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS 1 A. Definitions 3 B. Origins of Altruism 5 II . REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND FORMULATION OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 9 A. Induction and Children's Helping Behaviors 9 1. Induction in Natural Settings 9 a. Parental Warmth 13 b. Parental Moral Values 17 c. Modeling 19 d. Reinforcement 23 e. Summary 25 f. Implications for Education and Research 27 2. Experimental Induction 27 3. Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis 40 B. Children's Feelings and Helping and Cooperative Behaviors: The Case of Deservingness 42 1. D i s c i p l i n e 42 2. Feelings of Deservingness 43 3. Deservingness of Recipients 46 4. Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis 49 C. Ginott's Idea of Congruent Communication and the Effects of Personality Attractiveness 50 1. Congruent Communication 50 2. Personality Attractiveness 52 3. Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis 57 D. Interaction of Variables 58 v i E. Rationale for Using an Elderly Person as Recipient 60 F. Rationale for Using Children as Subjects 61 G. Hypothesis regarding gender and age effects 62 H. Summary and Research Hypotheses 63 II I . METHOD 66 A. Design 66 B. Subjects 66 C. Materials 66 D. Pre-experimental (Covariate) Questions 68 E. Testing Environment 69 F. Procedure 70 G. Outcome/Criterion (Dependent) Measures 76 H. Process Measures (Manipulation Checks) 78 IV. RESULTS 79 A. Process Measures: Manipulation Checks 79 1. Induction 79 2. Personality Attractiveness 80 3. Recipient Deservingness 82 B. Dependence/Independence among Process Measures 85 C. Outcome Measures: Research Hypotheses 87 •1 . Induction 90 2. Personality Attractiveness 91 3. Recipient Deservingness 92 4. Gender 92 5. Interaction Effects 93 D. Correlations among outcome measures 93 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 96 A. Induction 96 v i i 1. Manipulation Checks for Induction Treatment 96 2. Eff e c t s of Induction 99 B. Personality Attractiveness 103 1. Manipulation Checks for Personality Attractiveness Treatment 103 2. Effects of Personality Attractiveness 103 C. Recipient Deservingness 109 1. Manipulation Checks for Recipient Deservingness Treatment 109 2. Effects of Recipient Deservingness 115 D. E f f e c t s of Gender 119 E. Interaction Effects 124 F. General Conclusions 125 REFERENCES 133 APPENDICES A. Induction Statements 146 B. Non-Induction Statements 147 C. Two Levels of Deservingness: High vs. Low 148 D. Personality Attractiveness: High 149 E. Personality Attractiveness: Low 150 F. Manipulation Checks and Outcome Measures 151 G. Treatment Condition: I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 153 H. Treatment Condition: I l l u s t r a t i o n 2 157 I. Pre-experimental (Covariate) Questions 161 J. Instructions 163 K. Summary Table for 4-way MANCOVA Analysis 170 V 1 X 1 Table LIST OF TABLES 1. Subjects' responses to Questions 1 and 2 as a function of 16 induction x deservingness x attractiveness x gender conditions 171 2. Subjects' responses to Questions 3 and 4 as a function of 16 induction x deservingness x attractiveness x gender conditions 172 3. Subjects' responses to Questions 3 and 4 as a function of 2 attractiveness conditions 173 4. Subjects' responses to Questions 5, 6, and 7 as a function of 16 induction x deservingness x attractiveness x gender conditions 174 5. Subjects' responses to Questions 5 and 6 as a function of 2 deservingness conditions 175 6. Subjects' responses to Question 7 as a function of 2 deservingness, 2 attractiveness, and 4 deservingness x attractiveness conditions 176 7. Dependence/Independence among process measures (manipulation check questions) 177 8. Dependence/Independence between Questions 3 and 4 and Question 7 178 9. C e l l means of 3 outcome measures and 11 covariate measures of N=195 subjects 179 10. C e l l means of 3 outcome measures and 1 covariate measure of N=195 subjects 180 11. P r i n c i p a l component analysis 181 ix Acknowledgements It i s with a most sincere feeling of gratitude that t h i s writer acknowledges his immense indebtedness to members of his supervisory committee, Drs. Seong-Soo Lee, Nancy S. Suzuki, Dale T. M i l l e r , J. Gordon Nelson, the late David M. Williams, and, espec i a l l y , Stephen F. Foster, committee chairman (and major program advisor), for valuable guidance and u n f a i l i n g support. In the absence of their interest in my work, attention to d e t a i l s , and thoughtful c r i t i c i s m and advice, t h i s study could not have been completed in i t s present form. 1 CHAPTER I Introduction and Statement of Problems The purpose of the present study was to assess the extent to which a l t r u i s t i c behavioral di s p o s i t i o n ( i . e . , altruism) can be induced in children in conjunction with a recipient's personality attractiveness and deservingness of help as perceived by children offering help. The helping behaviors in the present study ( i . e . , the dependent measures) consist of children's 1) pledge to contribute written s t o r i e s ; 2) pledge to donate earnings; and 3) actual donations of earnings. These three measures of helping behaviors were chosen for study because each of them appears to have a d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t nature. S p e c i f i c a l l y , pledge to contribute stories is not monetary but involves personal commitment in the form of time and e f f o r t . Pledge to donate earnings and actual donations of earnings, on the other hand, are monetary and involve l i t t l e , i f any, personal commitment in terms of time and e f f o r t . In addition, the two monetary measures are d i s t i n c t from each other because one involves "verbal" while -the other involves "actual" donations. These three dependent measures thus may be expected to tap d i f f e r e n t aspects of helping behaviors in children. Research l i t e r a t u r e on the psychological aspects of children's a l t r u i s t i c (helping) behaviors abounds but studies lack in the potential use of data that would allow for the derivation of s p e c i f i c implications for educational practices. The primary focus of the present study i s on the p o s s i b i l i t y of inducing children to become a l t r u i s t i c , at least in a contrived 2 (experimental) s i t u a t i o n . In the research l i t e r a t u r e , large numbers of studies tend to deal mostly with a recipient's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as they influence subjects' helping behaviors. The important question "How to promote the development of altruism in children through induction?" has been studied by r e l a t i v e l y few researchers, most notably Hoffman (e.g., 1970a; 1975a; 1977). Nevertheless, i t would be useful to know the extent of "induceability" of altruism, that i s , the effects of induction {This term i s used here in the same sense as by Hoffman (1970a, p.286) to mean, in a general sense, explaining and reasoning with children so as to be a l t r u i s t i c . } , in conjunction with a recipient's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , namely, personality attractiveness and deservingness of help. From a p r a c t i c a l point of view, these three variables were chosen for study because they have important implications for education. S p e c i f i c a l l y , induction is a means for changing children's behaviors that can be used e a s i l y in everyday situ a t i o n s . In fact, in a general sense, a s i g n i f i c a n t part of education consists of "inducing" children to change in a manner that is consistent with the goals and values of a society (e.g., to be a l t r u i s t i c ) . To be more s p e c i f i c , many of the values, attitudes and behaviors of a person are acquired through reading printed materials. Studying induction that takes the form of written passages would add to our current knowledge about this means of behavior change, thereby making i t possible for people to use i t more e f f e c t i v e l y . From a research point of view, these three variables were 3 chosen for study because research findings on their effects are inconclusive. Further, these three variables represent influences from two d i s t i n c t sources - a t h i r d party (person delivering the induction) and the potential r e c i p i e n t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , induction represents a dire c t attempt from a t h i r d party to influence the c h i l d while deservingness and personality attractiveness- are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient that might exert influence on the c h i l d as well. By studying these three variables in combination, one can discern the unique as well as the i n t e r a c t i v e . e f f e c t s of these d i s t i n c t sources of influence. Also, the two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient, deservingness and personality attractiveness, have d i f f e r e n t lev e l s of "abstractness." While deservingness may be considered a r e l a t i v e l y more abstract variable in the sense that i t cannot be observed readi l y , personality attractiveness i s r e l a t i v e l y more "concrete" and can be observed more readily. In addition, these two variables seem to d i f f e r in a cognitive-affective dimension in that deservingness is more cognitive while personality attractiveness i s more a f f e c t i v e . By studying these two variables together, one can determine how recipient c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i f f e r i n g in abstractness and cognitive-a f f e c t i v e properties influence children's helping behaviors. Def i n i t i o n s Conceptually, not a l l helping behaviors are a l t r u i s t i c and/or moral. Indeed, helping behaviors may be described from both moral (moral vs. immoral) and a l t r u i s t i c ( a l t r u i s t i c vs. n o n a l t r u i s t i c ) perspectives such that a helping act may be 4 a) moral and a l t r u i s t i c ; b) moral and n o n a l t r u i s t i c ; c) immoral but a l t r u i s t i c ; and d) immoral and n o n a l t r u i s t i c . The examples for the above four combinations would be a) giving money to help a needy friend without any s e l f i s h intentions; b) giving money to help a needy friend with s e l f i s h intentions; c) getting money to help a needy friend by robbing a bank; and d) stealing the money that his sick friend saved for paying the doctor's b i l l s . The present study was addressed to helping behaviors that are both moral and a l t r u i s t i c although evidence to show that they are moral and a l t r u i s t i c may well be only i n d i r e c t . The reason i s that the experimental situations in which the helping behaviors w i l l be e l i c i t e d may not be tru l y representative of those moral and a l t r u i s t i c situations that occur in everyday l i v i n g . Nevertheless, in the context of the present study, morality i s used to referred to "conformity to ideals of right human conduct" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary), and altruism i s used to refer to "unselfish regard or devotion to the welfare of others" (Webster New Collegiate Dictionary). It should be noted, however, that in the research l i t e r a t u r e , altruism has been used interchangeably with helping (donating) behaviors (and i s , therefore, used likewise in thi s study) and has been defined in d i f f e r e n t ways by di f f e r e n t writers. For example, altruism has been defined as "behavior carried out to benefit another without an t i c i p a t i o n of rewards from external sources" by Macaulay and Berkowitz ( 1 9 7 0 , p.3 ) and "behaviors intended to benefit another but which appear to have a high cost to the actor with l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y of material or s o c i a l reward" by Bryan and London ( 1 9 7 0 , p . 2 0 0 ) . Leeds ( 1 9 6 3 ) , on the 5 other hand, suggested that an act is a l t r u i s t i c only i f i t is an end in i t s e l f without regard for self-gain and is performed vol u n t a r i l y and also results in good. According to Severy (1974), however, an act i s a l t r u i s t i c i f i t i s designed to be helpful and i s performed in immediate response to the recognition of another's need without prior consideration of external reinforcement. One can e a s i l y see here that the d e f i n i t i o n s noted above a l l take intentions behind the acts into account. But, as Rushton (1976) pointed out, the intentions behind children's actions have not been d i r e c t l y investigated and, as Krebs (1970) suggested, t h i s could be a problem since i t i s usually the intention behind the acts that determines the a l t r u i s t i c or moral values of the acts. The reason why the intentions behind a l t r u i s t i c acts have . not been investigated is probably not d i f f i c u l t to understand: It is not easy to measure objectively and, as Krebs and Wispe (1974) noted, i t is d i f f i c u l t to decide whether human beings are able to act without expectations of gain. A less r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of altruism has been adopted by Hoffman (1975a; 1976). His notion of altruism as "purposive action on behalf of someone else that involves a net cost to the actor" (Hoffman, 1975a, p.937) appears to be r e l a t i v e l y more concerned with the observable and may hence be regarded as a more objective d e f i n i t i o n of altruism. This i s the prefered d e f i n i t i o n of altruism for the present study. Origins of Altruism Different explanations exist for the o r i g i n of altruism and 6 discussions of them may lead to the controversial issue of human nature. While available evidence seems to indicate that man i s innately capable of a l t r u i s t i c acts, i t also appears that t h i s innate capacity does not program man to help or even to be motivated to help ( M i l l e r , 1981). These l a t t e r processes, according to M i l l e r (1981), and Shaffer (1979), are dependent on a host of factors, including' behavioral (e.g., learning), cognitive (e.g., moral reasoning and role-taking), and a f f e c t i v e (e.g., empathy) variables. In addition, evidence suggests that altruism also is influenced by such factors as age le v e l s , sex, and personality of the actor as well as the recipient, the relationship between the helper and his resources, and whether the helping situation i s public or anonymous (Bryan, 1975; M i l l e r , 1981; Rushton, 1976). It is perhaps partly because of these multiple determinants of altruism in children (and in adults) that i t has been a major focus of research. Other reasons underlying the untiring research e f f o r t are the potential implications for an understanding of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process (Krebs, 1970; Rushton, 1976). The apparently increasing brutal acts of individual c i t i z e n s towards one another (Bryan, 1972; Wispe, 1972) and the concern by many to produce a better society (Bryan, 1975) have also provided the needed impetus for researchers to engage in studies on a l t r u i s t i c behavior. In addition, altruism is studied because of i t s significance as an important personality t r a i t and as a challenge to some important theories of human behavior such as the reinforcement and psychoanalytic theories (Krebs, 1970). Also, the success of a 7 number of charitable programs such as the United Way, the Crippled Children's Fund depends on the a l t r u i s t i c support of the general public. Answers to the question "What factors influence people's a l t r u i s t i c behavior?" are therefore of much significance for those concerned with e l i c i t i n g people's a l t r u i s t i c responses. The present study was conducted in recognition of the importance of a l t r u i s t i c behavior, p a r t i c u l a r l y in children. Another motivation for the present study was that many, i f not most, experiments on altruism in children do not in themselves provide an educational experience to the children p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the studies. In one experiment (Grusec, Kuczynski, Rushton, & Simutis, 1978), for example, children were asked to "help test some new toys" supposedly manufactured by a toy company. For their help, the children earned some marbles, which could later be exchanged for prizes. They were then given an opportunity to donate these marbles to another c h i l d . While the experiment might be fun for children, i t does not seem to have taught the children anything educational. The study reported here improved on thi s situation by d i r e c t l y offering an educational' experience (through the induction treatment manipulated in thi s study) to the children p a r t i c i p a t i n g in this experiment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , this study attempted to provide an educational experience to the subjects while seeking to determine i f induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness influenced children's helping behaviors toward a needy eld e r l y person in the form of pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , pledge to donate earnings, and actual donations of 8 earnings. These three variables (induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness) were chosen . for t h i s study because they represent influences from two d i s t i n c t sources - a t h i r d party (person de l i v e r i n g the induction) and the potential recipient. S p e c i f i c a l l y , induction represents a dire c t attempt from a t h i r d party to influence the c h i l d while deservingness and personality attractiveness are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient that might exert influence on the c h i l d as well. By studying these three variables in combination, one can discern the unique as well as the interactive effects of these two d i s t i n c t sources of influence. Further, the two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient, deservingness and personality attractiveness, have di f f e r e n t l e v e l s of "abstractness." While deservingness may be considered a r e l a t i v e l y more abstract variable in the sense that i t cannot be observed readily, personality attractiveness is r e l a t i v e l y more "concrete" and can be observed more read i l y . In addition, these two variables seem to d i f f e r in a cognitive-a f f e c t i v e dimension in that deservingness is more cognitive while personality attractiveness is more a f f e c t i v e . By studying these two variables together, one can determine how recipient c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i f f e r i n g in abstractness and cognitive-a f f e c t i v e properties influence children's helping behaviors. 9 CHAPTER II Review of Literature and Formulation of Research Hypotheses As noted in Chapter I, children's a l t r u i s t i c behavior i s influenced by a number of factors and the present study sought to determine whether induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness influenced their helping behaviors. In t h i s chapter, the rationale behind the choice of each of these three factors and the review of pertinent l i t e r a t u r e are discussed in some d e t a i l and research hypotheses w i l l be formulated. INDUCTION AND CHILDREN'S HELPING BEHAVIORS  INDUCTION IN NATURAL SETTINGS Induction, that i s , reasoning with children in the form of explaining to them why their actions are wrong and why they should act in certain ways, has been emphasized by many researchers. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), Aronfreed (1968) and Hoffman (1970a) a l l regard reasoning as an important means for " i n ternalized" control of behavior and moral values. Aronfreed (1968), for example, suggested that reasoning "can expand the c h i l d ' s own cognitive resources for internalized control of i t s behavior" (p.316). Hoffman (1970a), on the other hand, suggested that induction in the form of pointing out the harmful consequences of the chil d ' s undesirable behavior on others (how people are hurt, disappointed, etc. by the chil d ' s actions) i s important for the development of internalized moral values and moral behavior. In a series of writings (e.g., Hoffman & S a l t z s t e i n , 1967; Hoffman 1970a, 1970b, 1975a, 1975b), 10 he suggested that, in d i s c i p l i n i n g children, the use of induction in the form of explaining and reasoning with children as to what not to do has a number of advantages over the use of techniques involving power-assertion (e.g., physically punishing the child) or love-withdrawal (e.g., t e l l i n g or showing the c h i l d that he i s not loved anymore). S p e c i f i c a l l y , he noted that the superiority of inductive techniques rests on their a b i l i t y to provide for the c h i l d a non-aggressive model as well as an opportunity for learning and role-taking (Hoffman & S a l t z s t e i n , 1967) and to help foster in the c h i l d a "positive image of the parent as a r a t i o n a l , non-arbitrary authority" and to furnish the c h i l d with "cognitive resources" needed to control his future behavior (Hoffman, 1970a, p.331; 1975b). The findings from a number of studies tend to support these views. Baumrind (1967, 1971), for example, found that explanation and reasoning with pre-school children by their parents contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the development of s o c i a l l y responsible behavior (e.g., following rules in school, being trustworthy) in them. In the longitudinal study by Sears et a l . (1957) with kindergarten children, i t was found that the use of explanation and reasoning by parents was related to children's internalized moral values (e.g., their tendency to confess and feeling miserable after wrongdoing). In another study with older ( f i f t h to eighth grade) children by Dlugokinski & Firestone (1974), subjects who reported that their mothers frequently reasoned ( i . e . , used induction) with them were perceived as more considerate by their 11 classmates from sociometric ratings. They were also found to donate more money, which they earned in the experiment, to a charitable organization than those who reported that their mothers frequently used power assertion (e.g., physical punishment) with them. The above findings thus indicate that induction tends to influence the development of moral behavior in children. But there are indications to show that the e f f e c t s of induction might be dependent on other d i s c i p l i n a r y variables. For example, in one study by Hoffman (1963), considerate nursery school children (as measured by such index as giving d i r e c t and u n s o l i c i t e d help to another c h i l d in distress) were found to have parents practice explaining and reasoning with them ( i . e . , using induction) and were low in power assertion (e.g., using physical punishment). No relationship, however, was found between induction and p o s i t i v e behavior in children whose parents were high in power assertion. This finding thus suggests that, for induction to be e f f e c t i v e , one needs to be careful in the concurrent use of other d i s c i p l i n a r y techniques, such as parental power assertion. In the study by Hoffman (1963) noted above, i t could be that power assertion by the parents served as an aggressive model for the children and hence offset whatever positive influence that induction might have on them. The e f f e c t s of induction might interact with other variables as well. In a study by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967), i t was found that the use of induction techniques (emphasizing the negative consequences of children's transgressions on the 1 2 victims) by either the father or the mother tended to enhance seventh-grade g i r l s ' consideration of their peers, as measured by peer sociometric ratings. The use of power assertion (frequent use of physical punishment and deprivation of material objects or privileges) by either parent, on the other hand, tended to enhance seventh-grade boys' consideration for others, as measured by sociometric ratings from peers. These findings thus indicate that induction, while e f f e c t i v e with seventh-grade g i r l s , was not e f f e c t i v e with seventh-grade boys and thus suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of interaction with the sex variable at other age l e v e l s . In any case, induction appears to have the kind of strength that is absent in other forms of d i s c i p l i n a r y control. As Hoffman (1970a) indicates, induction helps the c h i l d to focus his attention on the. consequences of his action and communicates to him that he i s responsible for the distress of the victim. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he noted that induction affects children through two mechanisms. F i r s t , i t d i r e c t s the child's attention to the d i s t r e s s of others and explains the nature of such di s t r e s s when i t i s not clear to the c h i l d . This may e l i c i t empathic responses from the c h i l d and help the c h i l d learn to recognize the feelings of others and to anticipate the consequences of his behavior for others. It may also enhance the c h i l d ' s role-taking a b i l i t y which, in turn, might lead to a greater l i k e l i h o o d for the c h i l d to display empathic reactions. Second, induction indicates to the c h i l d that he is responsible for the d i s t r e s s of others. This may help the c h i l d develop a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the welfare of others, or at least a notion 13 of how his behavior can a f f e c t others. Seen in this l i g h t , then, induction serves to provide an opportunity to stimulate not only the c h i l d ' s cognitive development, but the development of his a f f e c t i v e role-taking a b i l i t y as well. One should note here that the inductions discussed above tend to be those occuring naturally. That i s , they involve parental reasoning with and explaining to the c h i l d as the demand arises in everyday l i v i n g . Further, in the process of naturally-occuring induction, more than one i n f l u e n t i a l factor might be operating simultaneously. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t might communicate to the c h i l d adult (parental) nurturance and moral values, offer adult models and opportunity to him for role-taking, provide him with reinforcement.for the behavior desired of him, and assigning r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to him for the welfare of others, each of which has potential influence on children's helping behavior. Indeed, studies in the above areas have shown that each of these factors can s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhance children's helping behavior. Further, induction i s l i k e l y to involve a l l of them, p a r t i c u l a r l y parental warmth. They are, therefore, b r i e f l y discussed below. Parental Warmth Findings from a number of studies have shown that parental warmth and nurturance are related to altruism in children. Rutherford and Mussen (1968) reported that 4-year-old boys who indicated in a d o l l play that their fathers were warm, nurturant and sympathetic shared more candy with their friends, and were rated as being kinder by their teachers, than those who claimed 14 their fathers to be non-nurturant. The investigators suggested that these findings can be interpreted in terms of the boys' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with their fathers. Using interviews with workers in the c i v i l rights movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's, Rosenhan (1969, 1970) found major differences in parent-child relationships between the " f u l l y committed" workers - those remained active in the movement by helping in voter r e g i s t r a t i o n , teaching the underprivileged, etc., for at least a year - and the " p a r t i a l l y committed" workers - those who occasionally participated in freedom rides. The f u l l y committed workers were found to have a close (positive, c o r d i a l , warm, and respecting) relationship with at least one of their parents since their formative years. The p a r t i a l l y committed workers, on the other hand, were found to have a much less close relationship with their parents. They tended to use negative terms (e.g., h o s t i l e , avoidant) in describing their relationship with at least one of their parents. As M i l l e r (1981) suggests, warm, nurturant and affectionate parents may encourage a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children in several ways. F i r s t , children may learn to develop expectations of other people on the basis of their experience with their parents. Children of warm and affectionate parents may learn to expect warm and rewarding interactions with others as a result of their warm and nurturant interactions with their parents. Second, the nature of parent-child relationship may help to determine how well parents are perceived and accepted by their children. A warm and affectionate parent-child relationship may increase the 15 ch i l d ' s receptivity to the parents' verbal and behavioral influences, while a cold and h o s t i l e one may have the opposite e f f e c t s . Third, nurturant and affectionate parents are more l i k e l y to help children develop a positive self-concept than non-nurturant parents; and children who think highly of themselves may be more inclined and fe e l more competent in helping others than children who do not think highly of themselves. Lastly, nurturant and affectionate parents may be more accepting of the child' s expression of feelings and di s t r e s s than non-nurturant, non-affectionate parents. As Lenrow (1965) showed, when one's expression of distress i s accepted by others, one's responsiveness to the expression of distress by others i s also increased. Granted that the above reasonings are correct, one can expect parental nurturance and warmth to play an important role in the development of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children. These discussions by M i l l e r (1981) on the role of parental warmth and nurturance in the moral development of the c h i l d are consistent with those of Staub (1979). According to Staub (1979), parental warmth and nurturance may have four s i g n i f i c a n t consequences on the development of moral behavior in children. F i r s t , parental warmth and nurturance may help children feel secure and thus help minimize their concern for the self in their interaction with other people. This may enable the c h i l d to be more open to the needs of others and more w i l l i n g to i n i t i a t e helping actions. Evidence supporting this claim was found in one study by Staub (1971a). In this study, kindergarten children's helping 16 behavior (showing signs of concern) in response to the sounds of distr e s s (crying, sobbing) of a c h i l d in an adjoining room was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased following an 8 to 10 minutes of interaction with a nurturant (smiling, verbally rewarding) adult than with a non-nurturant (matter-of-factly) adult. This finding was also replicated in a study by Weissbrod (1976) . Second, an affectionate relationship between parents and children may help create a positive orientation toward other people and a cold, h o s t i l e relationship, a negative one. Evidence supporting the l a t t e r claim has come, for example, from a study by Bandura and Walters (1959). These investigators found that boys who were aggressive toward people outside the home tended to have a ho s t i l e relationship with their parents, p a r t i c u l a r l y their fathers. This h o s t i l e r e l a t i o n s h i p at home seemed to have at least two consequences: It led to the displacement of aggression ( i . e . , contributing to the development of aggression outside the home) and i t led to the chil d ' s rejection of parental requests and guidance. Third, the positive emotional environment created by parental warmth and nurturance may increase the ch i l d ' s r e c e p t i v i t y to the s o c i a l i z a t i o n influences of their parents and thus f a c i l i t a t e learning by the c h i l d . F i n a l l y , parental warmth may f a c i l i t a t e children's ac q u i s i t i o n of a prosocial orientation exhibited by their parents through the mechanism of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Empirical findings (e.g., Rutherford and Mussen, 1968) and the discussions by M i l l e r (1981) and Staub (1979) thus suggest that parental warmth and nurturance are important variables 17 influencing children's moral development and behavior. In the above discussions, the focus was on the role of parental warmth and nurturance in the development of moral behavior in children. Another focus of research in the moral development of the c h i l d has been the influence of parental moral values. Parental Moral Values Studies with college students have shown that their moral development tended to be influenced by their parents' moral values and moral behavior. In one study, McKinney (1971) proposed what was c a l l e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e - p r o s c r i p t i v e value dimension. He suggested that parents d i f f e r in this dimension in that some parents tend to emphasize the rewarding of good behavior and punishing for i t s absence (prescriptive) while" others tend to emphasize the punishment of bad behavior and rewarding for i t s absence (pr o s c r i p t i v e ) . This difference in parental practice was assumed to r e f l e c t differences in parental value orientations with regard to their expectation of children. The findings from the study show that college students did d i f f e r in t h i s p r e s c r i p t i v e - p r o s c r i p t i v e dimension, and students with a prescriptive value orientaion perceived their parents as more rewarding than those with a proscriptive orientation. In a subsequent study by Olejnik and McKinney (1973) with 4-year-olds, i t was showed that parents who used a pr e s c r i p t i v e value system (emphasizing to the c h i l d what he should do) tended to have more generous children, as measured by willingness to donate candy to poor children, than parents who used a 18 proscriptive value system (emphasizing to the c h i l d what not to do) . The above findings thus suggest that, to help children in their moral development, teaching children what to do probably is just as important, i f not more so, as teaching children what not to do. This i s of p a r t i c u l a r importance in l i g h t of the observations made by Staub (1971b), who noted that children's prosocial behavior is attenuated because parents tend to be more concerned about what their children should not do than what they should do. The roles of parental values on children's helping behavior were also studied by Berkowitz and Friedman (1967) with 13- to 16-year-old boys. The investigators made comparisons between children from two kinds of families: the middle-class bureaucratic (fathers were wage earners) and middle-class entrepreneurial (fathers were owners of business, salesmen, or professionals working for themselves or in partnership). In the experiment, the subjects f i r s t received what was described to them as either "high" or "low" help (someone worked very hard/did not work hard on his behalf in a geometric figure task) when they were in need of help. Later they were given an opportunity to help someone else. The findings showed that the help given to the other person was more influenced by the amount of help received e a r l i e r among the entrepreneurial than among the bureaucratic children. The entrepreneurial children were more l i k e l y to help only to the extent they had been helped. The investigators indicated that these findings seem to 19 suggest that the helping behavior of children from bureaucratic homes tends to be governed by a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the welfare of others. The helping behavior of children from entrepreneurial homes; on the other hand, tends to be governed by a sense of r e c i p r o c i t y , that i s , their helping behavior i s more contingent upon the prior receipt of help from others. Modeling The precise mechanism by which parental values and behavior influence children's helping behavior i s s t i l l far from being f u l l y understood. Probably, parental values and behavior are communicated to children by means of the process of modeling and children learn from these parental models. This reasoning i s consistent with the findings from a number of studies (e.g., Grusec, 1972) which showed that the generosity of the model was e f f e c t i v e in e l i c i t i n g donations from children of both sexes ranging in age from seven to 11 years. The modeling effect was also found in the study by Rosenhan (1969, 1970), discussed e a r l i e r . The investigator found that the " f u l l y committed" c i v i l rights workers in the early 1960's also had at least one parent who tended to both preach and practice moral concern for people, thereby acting as a model. The e f f e c t s of parental values and modeling are found in s t i l l another study by Hoffman (1970b). In the study, preadolescent boys with what was c a l l e d a "humanistic-flexible" moral orientation were found to have fathers whose moral judgment responses showed "open empathy" with people in d i s t r e s s . The above findings thus seem to indicate that a l t r u i s t i c 20 parents are e f f e c t i v e models for their children by, perhaps, as Hoffman (1975a) suggests, making altruism s a l i e n t to the c h i l d and by providing the c h i l d with guidelines for a l t r u i s t i c behavior. One explanation advanced to account for the effects of modeling (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1964; Krebs, 1970) i s that the behavior of a model reminds the observing c h i l d of the standard, or norm, of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y which the c h i l d has already learned. This means that the model reminds the observer by means of his action that they should help those who are in need and are dependent on them (the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y norm). Seen in th i s l i g h t , the observing c h i l d ' s a l t r u i s t i c behavior i s therefore a response to t h i s reminder. This reminder function of modeling i s reminiscent of the "response f a c i l i t a t i o n " function of modeling suggested by Bandura (1977), a major proponent of the s o c i a l learning theory of human behavior. In response f a c i l i t a t o n , according to Bandura, the model does not teach the observer anything new but merely prompts, and thus f a c i l i t a t e s , the behavior already exi s t i n g within the behavioral repertoire of the observer. In addition to t h i s response f a c i l i t a t i o n function, Bandura (1971, 1977) also suggested that modeling enables the observer to acquire new patterns of behavior and hence performs a "learning" function. Thus, in a l t r u i s t i c situations where the appropriate response may not be clear to the c h i l d , the c h i l d may learn the appropriate a l t r u i s t i c response by observing what the model does. These theoret i c a l modeling accounts, together with the 21 available empirical findings, some of which were discussed e a r l i e r , thus argue for the d e s i r a b i l i t y of providing children with a l t r u i s t i c models in order to promote the development of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in them. Some aspects of the model appear to be of special importance in influencing children's imitation of helping behavior. These include the emotional response and the power of the model. The emotional response of the model has been found to influence children's imitation of both generous and s e l f i s h behavior. In a study by Midlarsky and Bryan (1972), i t was found that fourth and f i f t h grade children imitated a model who showed positive a f f e c t immediately following his generous/selfish act m.ore than a model who did not show such positive a f f e c t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , they found that children who observed a s e l f i s h model who expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n s about keeping his earnings donated least, while children who observed a generous model feeling happy about his donations gave the most. One explanation underlying this finding is that people tend to perform acts that w i l l bring them s a t i s f a c t i o n s . Since the model displayed positive feelings after he kept/donated the money, the observer might likewise expect himself to experience similar positive feelings, and hence imitated the model. The educational implication here is that to enhance modeling e f f e c t s , the model should express to the c h i l d positive feelings about his helping behavior. This may help the c h i l d generate expectations about positive feelings of his own helping behavior, thereby enhancing the l i k e l i h o o d for him to engage in 22 such behavior. The power of the model, defined in terms of control over rewards and punishment, also has been found to influence children's a l t r u i s t i c behavior. In a study by Grusec (1971), two adult male models were pesented to a group of seven to 11-year-old children. One of the models was described to the children as one who would be selecting a c h i l d from the school for a special prize while the other was not so described. The results showed that children were more l i k e l y to imitate the model who would be choosing a c h i l d for a prize than the model without t h i s power. This finding has important educational implications for both parents and teachers. For they have direct control over the c h i l d in terms of the dispensation of both rewards and punishment and are therefore powerful models. This suggests that parents and teachers should be conscious of the potential influence of their behaviors on children. Studies have also provided evidence to suggest that assigning children r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the welfare of others enhances their helping behavior. In one study by Staub (1970a), i t was found that there were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more attempts to help a c h i l d apparently in di s t r e s s in an adjoining room among f i r s t grade subjects who were l e f t "in charge" by the experimenter than among subjects who were not assigned this r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In a cr o s s - c u l t u r a l study by Whiting and Whiting (1975), children who were assigned responsible duties (e.g., taking care of younger s i b l i n g s , tending animals) were found to be more helpful (e.g., of f e r i n g help and support to infants) than those 23 who had no such r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, and Keasey (1970) found that children, p a r t i c u l a r l y boys, who were rated considerate by their peers on such statements as "bawling someone out" for hurting another c h i l d had mothers who encouraged the development of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in them through their emphasis on "high standards of behavior." In a series of experiments, Staub (1970b, 1971a, I971d) also found that older s i b l i n g s were more hel p f u l , as evidenced by their indication of concern and attempts to help, than younger s i b l i n g s in their response to the sounds of distress emitted by a c h i l d in an adjoining room. One explanation underlying these findings is that t y p i c a l l y older s i b l i n g s are more l i k e l y to be c a l l e d upon to help take care of younger si b l i n g s and to help with household chores. It is possible that through t h i s experience, they develop a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by being able to observe that f u l f i l l m e n t of the i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y results in enhanced welfare of others. As a re s u l t , they tend to be more helpful than their younger brothers and s i s t e r s . Reinforcement Studies have also showed that the use of reinforcement, both material and s o c i a l , tend to enhance children's helping behavior. In a study by Fischer (1963), 4-year-old children were found to share more marbles when reinforced with candy, and less when reinforced with s o c i a l approval ("That's good; That's n i c e " ) . That material reinforcement was found to be more ef f e c t i v e than s o c i a l reinforcement in the study should not be a 24 surprise. It i s consistent with the theory of moral development proposed by Kohlberg (e.g., 1976). According to the theory of Kohlberg, children of t h i s young age are more concerned about the physical, rather than s o c i a l , consequences of their actions. Social approval, however, has been found to be e f f e c t i v e with older children. In one study, Midlarsky, Bryan, and Brickman (1973) found 12-year-old g i r l s made more donations of token chips (which they won in a game and were exchangeable for prizes) to a l o c a l needy children's fund when given so c i a l approval (e.g., smiling and saying "Boy, you're r e a l l y nice to do that") from a generous adult model than when no such approval was given. Social approval from a s e l f i s h model, however, was found to decrease subjects' donations in the study. One explanation for the lack of s o c i a l approval effect from the s e l f i s h model here i s that subjects may interpret such approval as being sarcastic and the approval thus takes on aversive properties. Approval from a generous model, on the other hand, was not so perceived and thus takes on reinforcing properties. In s t i l l another study by Gelfand, Hartmann, Cromer, Smith, and Page (1975), the subjects were kindergarten and f i r s t grade children. The researchers found that both i n s t r u c t i o n a l prompts ("Maybe i t would be nice i f you help that other boy/girl get his/her marble back once or twice") and s o c i a l praise (e.g., "Very good. Think how that girl/boy must feel now; Good thing you helped her/him") increased subjects' donations of pennies they won in a game to help enable another c h i l d to play in the game. 25 These findings thus indicate that reinforcements, both material and s o c i a l , are a potent factor influencing children's helping behavior. According to Bandura (1977), reinforcement can be defined in terms of response consequence and can influence children's behavior in two ways: by imparting information and by serving as a motivational agent. According to Bandura, reinforcement bestows information as to what kind of response i s appropriate in a given s i t u a t i o n . The information thus obtained by the c h i l d may become a valuable guide to him for future actions. Reinforcement i s also seen as a motivational agent of action because the response consequences experienced by a person in the past can generate expectations. Such expectations for consequences of actions can motivate an individual to engage in behavior designed to reproduce the expected consequence. These theoreti c a l considerations, along with the empirical findings on the effects of reinforcement, thus suggest that reinforcement can be used e f f e c t i v e l y to promote the development of helping behavior in children. Summary The above findings, which showed the e f f e c t s of parental nurturance, parental values and modeling, and induction, are corroborated by findings from a more recent study by Hoffman (1975a). In t h i s study with a group of middle-class f i r s t - b o r n fifth-grade children of above average IQ, i t was found that a l t r u i s t i c children, as determined by peer nomination, had at least one parent, usually of the same sex as the c h i l d , who communicated a l t r u i s t i c values to them. They also were found to 26 have at least one parent, usually of the opposite sex, who used victim-centered d i s c i p l i n e (directing the c h i l d ' s attention to the consequences of his action for the victim). In addition, i t was found that the son's a l t r u i s t i c behavior was s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced by the mother's a f f e c t i o n (e.g, praising, hugging, kissing the c h i l d ) . The author suggested that these findings could be a result of the ch i l d ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the same-sex parent, who thus serves e f f e c t i v e l y as a model. The findings discussed above thus indicate that childrearing experiences/parental practices play an important role in the development of altruism in children. As Hoffman (1975a) indicates, parents are models, d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s as well as suppliers of the child' s a f f e c t i o n a l needs. This suggests that parents may influence the development, of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children through a number of mechanisms. These mechanisms may include, as discussed above, the expression of parental a f f e c t i o n and nurturance, d i s c i p l i n a r y contacts, and parental modeling and encouragement, a l l of which may be involved in the process of induction. * In summary, then, the findings from a number of studies indicate that the development of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children i s influenced by a variety of factors. These factors may be involved simultaneously in naturally occuring inductions ( i . e . , explaining and reasoning with children as the demand a r i s e s ) , which have been found to correlate p o s i t i v e l y with children's moral development and behavior as measured by a variety of indices. These indices include peer nominations, expressed feelings of g u i l t following transgression, use of moral 27 judgment, willingness to confess and accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for misdeeds, and consideration for others (e.g., Hoffman & S a l t z s t e i n , 1967; Hoffman, 1970a, 1975a). Implicat ions for Educat ion and Research It should be noted here, that, although the above discussions have been presented largely through a parent-child framework, the educational implications should be clear to school teachers. For, in fact, children spend a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of their waking time in school with their teachers who, in many ways, function l i k e parents and could therefore be expected to exert considerable influence over them. The extent to which t h i s i s so raises empirical questions. Among these questions are the hypotheses examined in t h i s study. Also, i t should be noted that in natural induction, parental warmth, reinforcement, moral values and modeling can a l l contribute to the effectiveness of the parent, making the c h i l d more receptive to his/her influence. Seen in t h i s l i g h t , the effectiveness of natural induction seems to suggest that neither reinforcement nor psychoanalytic theory alone can adequately explain the development of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children. EXPERIMENTAL INDUCTION One should note here that the inductions discussed thus far tend to be global, summary measures of behavior across a variety of s i t u a t i o n s . They were usually obtained from interviews and s e l f - r e p o r t s , and the findings were based on c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. Also, the inductions tend to focus on the negative consequence of the c h i l d ' s "transgressive" behavior and to 28 emphasize to the c h i l d what not to do. Emphasis to the c h i l d on what to do and why one should do i t Seems to have been largely, ignored. It would therefore be of interest to see how these findings compare with those from experimental studies, especially those emphasizing to the c h i l d as to what to do. In one study by Staub (1971d), positive induction in the form of pointing out the positive consequences of the c h i l d ' s helping behavior, i . e . , the increased welfare and posi t i v e feelings of other people as a result of help rendered by the c h i l d , was studied. The subjects were kindergarten children and the stimulus situation consisted of the sounds of a crash followed by sounds of crying and sobbing from a "distressed" c h i l d in an adjoining room and, in a separate si t u a t i o n , a poor c h i l d whose sick parents could not afford to buy him a birthday present. The results showed that positive induction was not e f f e c t i v e in increasing the subjects' helping behavior, as measured by their indications of concern (e.g., going to the next room to see what was happening) for the two "distressed" children. One should note, however, that children at t h i s age might be s t i l l very e g o i s t i c and are therefore less able to see the needs of others. Further, the stimulus situation in the case of the "distressed c h i l d in the adjoining room" might have proved uncertain and ambiguous to the subjects. For example, the c h i l d might be unsure whether he should stay in the room where he was or go to the next room and take a look at what was happening there. The sounds of crash and those of crying and sobbing 29 emitted by the "distressed" c h i l d might even have e l i c i t e d fear and, therefore, frightened the subjects. Under such circumstances, i t i s possible that the subjects might find i t safer to remain inactive than active. In the case of the c h i l d without a birthday present, the experimenter's remark "There i s some candy in there for him already" might have attenuated the subjects's helping responses. Also, the subjects might have f e l t that a birthday present was something nice to have but not that important. Granted this to be true, then one might expect the subjects' helping responses to be attenuated and the e f f e c t s of induction adversely influenced. A number of other experimental studies have also been conducted to determine the ef f e c t s of positive induction on children's helping behavior. The induction usually takes the form of preaching and/or moral exhortation. The res u l t s , though more positive than negative, are by no means conclusive. In a study by Bryan and Walbek (1970a) with t h i r d , fourth, and f i f t h grade children, generosity preachings consisting of the following statements were used: 1. If I win any money today, I am going to give some to those poor children; 2. She (the experimenter) said we didn't have to, but I think i t would be a good idea - i t would make them happy; 3. I won three cents; 4. I won another three cents; 5. Yes s i r , I think that we should give some of our money to poor children; 6. If I win any more money, I am going to give some away; 7. It i s r e a l l y good to donate to poor children; 8. Children should help other children; 9. Yes s i r , people ought to share with other people. These statements were verbalized singly by an adult model, 30 who either donated or did not donate, among the t r i a l s in a bowling game. The effects of these generosity preachings were compared with those of s e l f i s h preachings and neutral preachings. The s e l f i s h preachings consisted of such statements as "If I win any money today, I am not going to give any to the poor children; She said that we didn't have to; No s i r , why should we give any of our money to other people? If I win any more money, I am going to keep i t a l l to myself; It is not good to donate to the poor people; Children don't have to help other children; Yes s i r , people don't need to share with other people." The neutral preachings consisted of such statements as "I hope that I win some money today; I hope I win some more." The results showed that children's donations (coupons which they won in the bowling game and were exchangeable for prizes) were not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y influenced by" these three kinds of preachings. In a separate study by the same authors (Bryan & Walbek, 1970b) with second, t h i r d , and fourth grade g i r l s , generosity preachings consisting of the following five statements were used: 1. I think that we should give to the crippled kids. I hope the kids watching w i l l ; 2. It's good to give to those kids. I hope the other boys and g i r l s w i l l give their money away; 3. It's a nice thing to give to the crippled children; 4. I hope the person watching does give; 5. You should give to others. These statements were verbalized by a video-taped adult model, who was either generous or s e l f i s h , one per t r i a l following each non-winning t r i a l in a bowling game. The e f f e c t s of these generosity preachings were, again, 31 compared with those of s e l f i s h preachings - the negative version of the above statements (e.g., I don't think that we should give to the crippled kids, I hope the kids watching don't) and neutral preachings (This game is fun; I l i k e the game; I hope I win again; This i s a good game; This i s a good game) delivered in the same manner as the generosity preachings. The findings, again, showed that children's donation of earned coupons, which were exchangeable for prizes, was not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y influenced by these three kinds of preachings. In another study with children 8 to 10 years of age by Rushton and Owen (1975), the effects of generosity preaching (We should share our tokens with Bobby) were compared with those of s e l f i s h preaching (We should not share our tokens with Bobby) and neutral preaching (This i s r e a l l y fun). These preachings were made during a bowling game by a video-taped generous or s e l f i s h model of the same sex of the c h i l d . The findings, again, showed no d i f f e r e n t i a l effects on children's donations of winnings won in the bowling game. An examination of the preachings used in the above three studies showed that they a l l tended to emphasize the norm of so c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and/or the virtue of being generous. It i s conceivable that repeated verbalization of such preachings may be perceived by the subjects as ar b i t r a r y , external pressure to conform (donate) and, as Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak and Simutis (1978) indicate, t h i s may generate psychological reactance in children. Also, since the induction statements were made among the bowling t r i a l s , children's attention might have been captured more by the outcome of the bowling e f f o r t than by the 32 model's verbalizations. Given these considerations, and the fact that the model was someone unknown to the c h i l d and had no power or control over him, i t appears that the induction manipulations in the above studies were weak and they hence f a i l e d to produce the expected e f f e c t s . In contrast to the above findings, which f a i l e d to show the effe c t s of induction on children's donating behavior, Grusec and Skubiski (1970) and Grusec (1972) found some success with their experimental inductions. In the Grusec and Skubiski (1970) study, the subjects were t h i r d and f i f t h grade children. The following exhortation was made by a same-sex model (who was either nurturant or non-nurturant and donating or simply verbalizing the exhortations) before he/she started playing the bowling game: "Well, I guess they expect us to share our marbles with those poor children. Probably that's what one had better do. I guess i f I give one out of every two marbles I win to the poor children that would be f a i r . So that means whenever I get a score of 70 or 80 I would get two marbles. I'd take two from the box, put one in the poor children's blue bowl and put one in my yellow bowl. If I got any other score I wouldn't win anything, so I r e a l l y ought to hope I get a lot of 70s and 80s. Then there would be a chance to give away some of the marbles to the poor children." (p.355). The subjects watched the model play and was then given the opportunity to play and win some marbles. The results showed that exhortation, as compared to modeling (the model's actual acts of donating), were e f f e c t i v e only for g i r l s assigned to a nurturant female model with whom the subjects had warm, friendly and rewarding interactions. It should be noted here that the above preaching may have 33 appeared complicated and therefore may have confused the c h i l d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , a portion of the exhortation (e.g., If I got any other score I wouldn't win anything, so I r e a l l y ought to hope I get a lot of 70s and 80s) appeared to have the eff e c t of di s t r a c t i n g rather than d i r e c t i n g children's attention to the proper focus of giving. Further, when the preachings were delivered, the model was not talking d i r e c t l y to the c h i l d but "musing slowly to himself and taking care not to look at the c h i l d . " (p.354). Given these considerations, several p o s s i b i l i t i e s existed that might account for the above finding. F i r s t , g i r l s have been found to be more verbally competent than boys u n t i l about the age of 10 (Maccoby,1966). This suggests that g i r l s might have comprehended the message better than boys. Second, nurturant ( i . e . , warm, fr i e n d l y , rewarding) adults might have made the g i r l s f e e l more comfortable and hence more at ease with the s i t u a t i o n . This might have f a c i l i t a t e d the g i r l s ' attention, comprehension, and retention of the message. Third, according to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n theory of sex-role development (e.g., Kohlberg, 1966), g i r l s identify more with female models and boys with ma'le models. This suggests that the finding noted above could have been accounted for, at least in part, by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n theory of sex-role development. F i n a l l y , the p o s s i b i l i t i e s just discussed might have operated j o i n t l y to produce the finding noted above. That i s , exhortation, as compared to modeling, was e f f e c t i v e only for g i r l s who had a warm, fr i e n d l y , and rewarding interaction with a nurturant female model. 34 In another study by Grusec (1972), 7- and 11-year-old boys and g i r l s served as subjects. The procedures and induction statements were comparable to those in the Grusec and Skubiski (1970) study. The findings showed that induction, as compared to modeling, was ef f e c t i v e with a l l subjects except the 7-year-old boys. The author suggested that two p o s s i b i l i t i e s existed to account for t h i s finding. The f i r s t i s that the desire for so c i a l approval is stronger for 7-year-old g i r l s than 7-year-old boys. The second i s the finding by Maccoby (1966) that g i r l s are more verbally competent (and thus may comprehend the message better) than boys u n t i l about the age of 10. In another study by Rushton (1975) with 7- to 11-year-old children, tokens exchangeable for prizes, a bowling game, and an adult model, who was either generous or s e l f i s h , were again used. The following preaching statements were verbalized by the model among the bowling t r i a l s : 1. We should share our tokens with Bobby; 2. It's good to give to kids l i k e him; 3. It's right to share counters with Bobby; 4. You should give to kids l i k e him. The effects of these generosity preachings were compared with those of s e l f i s h preachings (the negative version of the above statements, e.g., We should not share our counters with Bobby; It's not good to give to kids l i k e him) and those of neutral statements (This is a nice game; I r e a l l y l i k e playing this game; This is r e a l l y fun; I l i k e this game). The results showed no d i f f e r e n t i a l preaching effects on children's donations on the immediate test but a s i g n i f i c a n t preaching effect on a re-test two months l a t e r . Also, in the re-35 test, a s i g n i f i c a n t preaching x model generosity interaction e f f e c t was found such that the generous model preaching selfishness induced subjects to donate the least in the generous model condition while the s e l f i s h model preaching generosity produced the most giving in the s e l f i s h model condition. Further, in the generous model condition, the generous model preaching neutral messages induced more donations than the generous model preaching generosity. The author suggested that the model might not have provided a "neutral" preaching. Instead, he might have served as a source of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t previously found by Bryan (1971) to be e f f e c t i v e in increasing children's imitative generosity. This then could have accounted for the interaction. He also suggested that the lack of preaching e f f e c t s in the immediate test was probably due to children's paying more attention to the "perceptual a t t r i b u t e s " of the situation ( i . e . , the model's donating behavior) than to the symbolic attributes ( i . e . , the preachings). At the re-test, on the other hand, the subjects by necessity had to rely more on the symbolic process and semantic memory. This d i f f e r e n t mode of cognition thus produced d i f f e r e n t findings between the two tests. One might also add here that the above preaching consists mainly of the repeated verbalization of a s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y norm. This repeated reference may have threatened the child's feelings of autonomy by having appeared to him as arbitrar y , external pressure to conform (donate). This may again, as Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, and Simutis (1978) suggested, generate psychological reactance. Also, since the model was a stranger to 3 6 the c h i l d with no power or control over him, the c h i l d might feel that he could r e s i s t the pressure without any fear for negative consequences. On the re-test, however, when this reactance had dissipated and the ch i l d ' s feelings of autonomy restored, simply r e c a l l i n g the norm of so c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the part of the c h i l d may be s u f f i c i e n t to induce him/her to donate. To recapitulate, i t may be noted that the induction findings discussed thus far tend to suggest that experimental inductions were either t o t a l l y unsuccessful or else they were met only with limited success. An examination of their preaching contents indicate that the major emphasis was on the verbalization of the so c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y norm, the virtue of generosity, a simple exhortation to help, or some combinations of them. Other considerations such as appealing to the child' s personal feelings about helping and the effects of their help on the person being helped, i . e . , the recipient, have been mostly, i f not t o t a l l y , ignored. In contrast to the above findings, however, there are studies which showed that induction did influence donating behavior in chi l d r e n . In a study by Midlarsky and Bryan (1972) on grade-four and grade-five children, a generous or s e l f i s h adult model and a bowling game were again used as part of the experiment. The generosity preaching of the model consisted of the following: "I think that I ' l l l i k e t h i s game. It seems l i k e fun. I hope that I ' l l win some money because I'd r e a l l y l i k e to give some to needy children. She said that any money l e f t here would buy them some presents - and i f I were a needy 37 c h i l d , I would feel important just knowing that other children l i k e you and even young adults cared about me enough to leave money for me." (p.198). Also, the following fiv e statements were made on five non-winning t r i a l s of the game: 1. It's a fine thing to give to needy children; 2. I know that I don't have to give, but i t would make some children very happy, wouldn't i t ? 3. We r e a l l y should share what we are lucky enough to win; 4. Children should help other children; 5. It's a good thing to give, especially when you know that i t w i l l make others happy. The effects of these generosity preaching were compared with those of greedy preaching, which took the following form: "I think that I ' l l l i k e this game. It seems l i k e fun. I hope that I win some chips, because I could r e a l l y use some spending money this week. Of course, she said that we could leave some money for the needy children. But this l i t t l e b i t of money couldn't buy anything important. And i f I were a needy c h i l d , I would be very hurt to think that other children pity me enough to offer t h i s kind of help. I think that getting charity can make someone fee l very bad." (p.198). In addition to the above preachings, the following fiv e statements were made on the five non-winning t r i a l s : 1. It's not so good to give to needy children; 2. We don't have to give, and anyway, i t wouldn't make the children very happy; 3. I don't think that i t i s so important to share what we win here; 4. Children do not r e a l l y need to share with other children; 5. It's not so good to give, es p e c i a l l y when you rea l i z e that i t makes some children feel pretty bad to get charity. The results showed that generosity exhortations induced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more donations of chips (which the subjects won in a game and could be exchanged for prizes) than greedy exhortat ions. As can be seen, one feature of the exhortations used in the above study is that i t contains substantive reasons for giving 38 (and for non-giving). Also, the exhortations tend to c a p i t a l i z e on several factors simultaneously. These factors include reference to the a f f e c t i v e state of the potential recipients, the virtue of generosity, the norm of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , personal autonomy, and the consequence of donations. Further, the manipulation of affect occupied a central position throughout the exhortation. And, f i n a l l y , a l l the statements in the exhortation tend to share a clear focus on giving and a l l appear quite concise. These features of exhortations thus contrast sharply with those discussed e a r l i e r , which were found to be i n e f f e c t i v e in inducing donations from children. In another study by Rice and Grusec (1975) with grade-three and grade-four children, verbal exhortation by a same-sex model (who either donated or simply verbalized the exhortations) also was found to be e f f e c t i v e , as compared to a control condition, in inducing donations of marbles won in the bowling game to poor children in both an immediate test and a follow-up test four months l a t e r . The exhortation consisted of the following statements: "Well now, I guess they expect us to give some to the poor children. Probably that's what one had better do. One should keep half for himself in the yellow bowl and put half in the blue bowl for the poor children. That way a person would have the same number for himself as he gave to the poor children Yes, that's "(p.586). It can be seen here that the above exhortation tends to be highly p r e s c r i p t i v e . It indicates c l e a r l y and concisely what i s to be done. Further, the statements a l l tend to focus on the same behavior ( i . e . , giving) such that the p o s s i b i l i t y to d i s t r a c t the attention of the subjects (as was l i k e l y the case in the 1970 study by Grusec and Skubiski) was at a minimum. The 39 exhortation used in this study thus shares some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those used in the Midlarsky and Bryan (1972) study, which found generous, as compared to s e l f i s h , inductions to be e f f e c t i v e in inducing donating behavior in children. In a more recent study on the effects of preaching on children's generosity, Eisenberg-Berg and Geisheker (1979) have found' that empathic preachings, as compared with "normative" preachings (emphasizing sharing and donating as a good thing and a right thing to do and urging subjects to share and donate) and a control condition, s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced children's generosity, as measured by the amount of money donated, regardless of the power status of the preacher. The study used grade-three and grade-four students as subjects and the content of the preaching, delivered by the children's school p r i n c i p a l and a stranger, took the following form: "Well now, I think that people should share with the poor children. They would be so happy and excited i f they could buy food and toys. After a l l , poor children have almost nothing. If everyone would help these children maybe they wouldn't look so sad." As can be seen, the exhortation here again shares some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the exhortation used in the Midlarsky and Bryan (1972) study. It consists of manipulations of the a f f e c t i v e state of the recipient, a description of the posi t i v e consequences that might result from the subjects' donations, and reference to the norm of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . An examination of the exhortations used in the studies by Midlarsky and Bryan (1972), Rice and Grusec (1975), and Eisenberg-berg and Geisheker (1979) thus suggest that exhortations that 40 1. stress the reasons for helping; 2. are designed to arouse the empathic response of the subjects; 3. are p r e s c r i p t i v e , i . e . , indicating c l e a r l y to the subjects what the situation i s and what the appropriate behaviors are; 4. do not repeat the norm of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; 5. are delivered in one single dose rather, than being broken up into several parts delivered one at a time at d i f f e r e n t points in time tend to produce the expected e f f e c t . The present study was, in part, an attempt to c o l l e c t further evidence to strengthen the indication of these findings. Since only subjects of grade three through grade five were used in the above studies, i t remains to be determined whether preaching contents emphasizing empathic reactions would be e f f e c t i v e with subjects of higher grade l e v e l s . Moreover, as can be seen from the exhortations used in the above studies, the contents tend to focus on the feelings of the potential recipients - poor children, the feelings of the subjects themselves (e.g., how they themselves f e l t when they were helped) were not d i r e c t l y introduced into the treatment. Also, since poor children were the potential recipients in a l l the above studies, i t would be interesting to see how preaching contents designed to e l i c i t children's empathic reactions toward a needy elderly person by appealing to the subjects' own feelings in addition to those of the potential recipients would influence children's donating behavior. Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis Because of the above considerations, i t was therefore decided to examine further the e f f e c t s of exhortation, i . e . , induction, in the present study. In addition, the content of induction used in the present study was designed to integrate, 41 extend, and also replicate the features of those used in the studies by Midlarsky and Bryan (1972), Rice'and Grusec (1975), and Eisenberg-Berg and Geisheker (1979). S p e c i f i c a l l y , the af f e c t i v e role-taking a b i l i t y of the subjects and the feelings (affect i v e response) of both the potential recipient and the subjects themselves were taken into account, two s p e c i f i c reasons for helping the eld e r l y in need (they are lonely and less fortunate than children are) were emphasized, and an exhortation to help was then made. In addition, pressure on the subjects to help was minimized in the present study by avoiding the verbal repetition of the norm of so c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The content of the induction i s reproduced in Appendix A. The non-induction statements used to replace the induction in the control ( i . e . , non-induction) condition i s reproduced in Appendix B. These two "l e v e l s " of induction permitted a comparison to be made between the effects of induction and the effects of the absence of induction. Following from the findings of previous studies (e.g., Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979), and assuming that the induction would generate i t s intended e f f e c t s , i t was therefore predicted that children exposed to the induction condition would be more helpful than children exposed to the control (non-induction) condition. The above discussion has been focused on induction as a source of influence on children's helping behaviors. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t may be regarded as a concerted e f f o r t to influence the c h i l d by a t h i r d party. As discussed in Chapter I, 42 two variables that represent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient (deservingness and personality attractiveness) would be examined in this study. In the following sections, the educational relevance and .research findings on these two variables w i l l be discussed. CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND HELPING AND COOPERATIVE BEHAVIORS: THE CASE OF DESERVINGNESS D i s c i p l i n e Reflecting the concern of pre-service teachers for classroom d i s c i p l i n e s , many textbooks on educational psychology (e.g., Good & Brophy, 1981; Kagan & Lang, 1978; Lefrancois, 1979) have devoted at least one chapter to the discussion of classroom management problems. In addition, many books (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1977; Welch & Hughes, 1977; Tanner, 1978) dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with classroom d i s c i p l i n e have appeared. A l l these seem to indicate that classroom d i s c i p l i n e i s a major concern for educators. Classroom d i s c i p l i n e , however, does not occur in the absence of a s o c i a l context. It e n t a i l s the cooperation between the teacher and children. From the teacher's point of view, "help" from children i s required i f classroom d i s c i p l i n e i s to be maintained. Yet some teachers inadvertantly behave in ways that provoke children's resistance and misbehavior. The following incident, recorded by Kounin (1970) during a classroom teacher's t r a n s i t i o n from a s p e l l i n g to an arithmetic lesson, is a case in point: 1. A l l right, everybody, I want you to close your sp e l l i n g books. 2. Put away your red pencils. 3. Now close your s p e l l i n g books. 4. Put your s p e l l i n g books in your desks. 5. Keep them out of the way. 43 6. Take out your arithmetic books and put them on your desks in front of you. 7. That's right, l e t ' s keep everything off your desks except your arithmetic books. 8. And l e t ' s s i t up straight. We don't want lazybones, do we? 9. That's fine. Now get your black pencils. 10. Open your books to page sixteen. Feelings of Deservingness According to Ginott (1972), teachers' orders and commands such as those noted above invite resentment and defiance from children while statements showing respect for children's feelings and autonomy (e.g., "Now i t ' s time for arithmetic; the assignment i s on page sixteen." - Ginott, 1972, p.79) are more l i k e l y to e l i c i t children's cooperation and compliance. Indeed, in a series of writings on a d u l t - c h i l d relationships, Ginott (1965, 1969, 1972) has consistently stressed the importance of keeping in mind children's feelings when dealing with their behavioral problems. One overriding theme throughout this series i s that actions on the part of adults that take children's feelings into account are more l i k e l y to be successful in gaining children's cooperation and compliance than those that do not. Thus, in response to the protest "Everyone had more chances than I. I'm always gypped." by a student when the basketball game had to be stopped at the end of a P.E. cl a s s , the teacher might say: "To change your feelings about th i s s i t u a t i o n , take three more shots. I ' l l wait for you." (Ginott, 1972, pp.36-37) rather than saying something l i k e "How come you are always complaining? Everybody had a f a i r chance." Granted that children's feelings about their teacher influence their behavior toward the teacher, one might expect that, in an a l t r u i s t i c s i t u a t i o n , children's feelings about a 44 potential recipient w i l l influence their behavior toward that recipient. One purpose of the present study was, therefore, to determine how children's feelings influence their behavior in an a l t r u i s t i c s i t u a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the study attempted to determine i f children's feelings of the potential recipient's deservingness of help influence their helping behaviors. Although t h i s study was concerned, in part, with children's helping behaviors as influenced by the deservingness of the recipient, the findings would have educational implications. For example, i f children's helping behaviors were, indeed, found to be influenced by recipient deservingness, then one implication is to emphasize the "deservingness" of teachers as a means to gain children's "helping" behaviors. Children as young as four years of age appear to have a notion of deservingness, defined in terms of worthiness of help, reward, and the l i k e . In one study with nursery school children, Nelson and Dweck (1977) found that 4-year-old children allocated more reward to someone who did more work than someone who did less work. A recent review of research by Hook and Cook (1979) suggests that findings on the a l l o c a t i o n of rewards, as i t relates to the notion of deservingness, are consistent, especially across studies with children between 6 to 12 years of age. While the above discussion i s concerned with children's feelings of deservingness of reward and their reward a l l o c a t i o n behavior, the relationship between children's feelings of deservingness of reward and their helping behaviors has also 45 been studied. In one study by Long and Lerner (1974), fourth-grade children were assigned to help test a toy and were paid a certain amount of money for their help. They were told either a) the payment they received was proper payment for children of their age; or b) i t was proper payment for better q u a l i f i e d , older children, but since the experimenter could not find older children to help with the task, the subject were paid that amount anyway. The findings showed that subjects who were told they were given proper payment, and presumably f e l t that they deserved the money, subsequently donated less of their money to a poor orphan than subjects who were told that they were overpaid and presumably f e l t less deserving of the money. In a more recent study, conducted by W i l l i s , Feldman, and Ruble (1977), the generosity of 48 f i r s t and t h i r d grade children as i t was influenced by their own deservedness of reward and the age of a crippled recipient was examined. The researchers found that children's generosity was unaffected by their own deservedness of reward: Children in the earned reward condition (paid to parti c i p a t e in the experiment) donated as much as children in the windfall reward condition ( i n c i d e n t a l l y given money that nobody wanted to carry around when they came to participate in the experiment). The authors, however, suggested that their deservedness treatment conditions might have f a i l e d to generate the intended effects in the children and, as a resu l t , no difference was observed between the donations of children in the two treatment groups. Nevertheless, children were found to donate more to crippled children than crippled 4 6 adults, and the authors suggested that children's conception of need, deservedness, as well as the extent to which perceived s i m i l a r i t y between the children and the recipients be examined. Deservingness of Recipients The few studies that have been conducted to determine the relationship between children's feelings of deservingness and their helping behavior have been largely confined to children's feelings of their own deservingness of reward. U n t i l recently, children's feelings of the deservingness of reward, help, etc. of the potential recipient as they affect their helping behaviors had been largely ignored. Taking t h i s into account, M i l l e r and Smith (1977) conducted a study to examine not only the effects of children's own deservingness of reward on their donating behavior, but the effe c t s of the deservingness of the recipients as well. The subjects were 90 fifth-grade children. Each subject was asked to help "test" a game made by a toy company and was paid 70 cents for his service. The children's deservingness was manipulated by leading them to feel that they were either overpaid, properly paid, or underpaid for their assistance. The recipients' deservingness was manipulated by te'lling the subjects that a group of five children would not be paid for their service in testing the game because of i n s u f f i c i e n t money (the non-responsible condition) or by t e l l i n g the subjects that t h i s group of children, who were paid for their service, had been careless and lost their money and now wanted their lost money reimbursed (the responsible condition). The results showed a main effect of subject deservingness -47 the overpaid subjects donated s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the properly-paid subjects who, in turn, donated more than the underpaid subjects. These findings are thus consistent with those of Long and Lerner (1974), indicating that children do appear to have a notion of deservingness - they donate more earnings when i t appears that they do not deserve the earnings than when they deserve them. M i l l e r and Smith (1977) also found the main effect of recipient deservingness to approach s t a t i s t i c a l significance and a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between subject deservingness and recipient deservingness - the overpaid subjects donated approximately equal amounts to the responsible and the nonresponsible victims while the properly paid and the underpaid subjects donated more to the nonresponsible victims than the responsible victims. This pattern of findings, with properly paid and underpaid subjects donating more to the nonresponsible than the responsible victims, seem to suggest that subjects, at least those in the two payment conditions mentioned, displayed a notion of recipient deservingness. The overpaid subjects, who did not discriminate between responsible and nonresponsible victims in their donations but neverless donated more than the properly paid and underpaid subjects, might be experiencing what is termed "equity d i s t r e s s " (Adams, 1965; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973), as the authors suggested. This means that their undiscriminated donations to the two categories of victims might have re f l e c t e d their desire to reduce equity d i s t r e s s rather than an absence of the notion of recipient deservingness. 48 Because of the above considerations, the present study attempted to further examine the effects of recipient deservingness on children's donating behavior. Also, i t should be noted here that the stimulus situation in the M i l l e r and Smith (1977) study had potential negating influence on children's donating behavior. Because being careless and losing money could conceivably occur frequently among children, p a r t i c u l a r l y among younger children. Presenting their peer victims as responsible for their fate because of their carelessness and losing money may serve to conjour up children's empathic reactions to the responsible victims, thereby influencing their generosity. This suggests that the effe c t of victim deservingness in the study risked the p o s s i b i l i t y of being negated by the eff e c t s of children's empathic response. Because of this consideration, the present study attempted to test children's perception of victim deservingness in a stimulus situation that would appear to be r e l a t i v e l y remote from such personal experience of children as loosing money. Further, in contrast to the studies by Long and Lerner (1974), W i l l i s et a l . (1977) and M i l l e r and Smith (1977), in which subjects' own deservingness was varied, the present study deliberately sought to induce uniform feelings of own deservingness among the subjects by of f e r i n g a standard amount of cash payment for an i d e n t i c a l amount of work to be performed by each subject. This manipulation permitted the children's donating behavior to be assessed from, hopefully, the same base le v e l of the subjects' own deservingness. 49 F i n a l l y , i t should be noted that the studies by Long and Lerner (1974), W i l l i s et a l . (1977), and M i l l e r and Smith (1977) have focused mainly on the "product" measures of the experimental treatments. What i s termed "process" measures have been largely ignored. This means that there had been no procedures other than the dependent measures to moniter and check i f the experimental treatments were, indeed, functioning as intended. The present study improved on t h i s by means of manipulation checks that would be made following the experimental treatments. Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis As the primary interest of thi s study was in comparing the effects of high vs. low deservingness (deservingness vs. non-deservingness) on children's donating behavior, only two levels of deservingness, i . e . , high and low, were included in thi s study. In the high deservingness condition, a certain senior c i t i z e n by the name of Mr. Brown was described to the subjects as having worked hard for two years in order to save enough money to buy his own r e f r i g e r a t o r . But the refr i g e r a t o r was damaged beyond repair two weeks after i t was bought because of an error made by an apparently careless e l e c t r i c i a n who had moved out of town and could not be reached. In the low deservingness condition, Mr. Brown was described to the subjects as having been given a new refr i g e r a t o r for free by a wealthy neighbor. But the refr i g e r a t o r was damaged beyond repair two weeks la t e r because Mr. Brown did not pay careful attention to the wiring instructions. A complete description of these two le v e l s of recipient 50 deservingness is reproduced in Appendix C. These two treatment levels of recipient deservingness appeared to be able to represent a well-defined and yet r e l a t i v e l y r e a l i s t i c dichotomous s i t u a t i o n . It also appeared to be r e l a t i v e l y free from children's personal experience that could have potential negating influence on treatment manipulations such as used in the M i l l e r and Smith (1977) study. Because findings from previous studies (e.g., M i l l e r & Smith, 1977) suggested that the effects of recipient deservingness were not clear and since children's feelings (perceptions) were considered an important factor influencing their behaviors (e.g., Ginott, 1965, 1969, 1972), i t was therefore predicted that subjects would be more generous in their donating behavior towards someone they perceived as dese'rving than towards someone they perceived as undeserving. GINOTT'S IDEA OF CONGRUENT COMMUNICATION  AND THE EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY ATTRACTIVENESS  Congruent Communication In his writings on ad u l t - c h i l d relationships, Ginott (1965, 1969, 1972) has emphasized the importance of what i s c a l l e d "congruent communication," i. e . , language that f i t s feelings and situations, between adults and children in adults' attempts to deal with children's behavioral problems or gaining their cooperation. According to Ginott, when children have done something contrary to adults' expectations, adults should avoid giving c r i t i c a l messages, judging children's personality or character, or shaming, blaming, or in s u l t i n g them. To gain a chi l d ' s cooperation, they should , instead, take the ch i l d ' s 51 feelings into account, speak to the c h i l d about the situation he is in and attack the problem created by the c h i l d rather than the c h i l d himself. While dealing with the problem, they should demonstrate respect, dignity and sympathy for the c h i l d . Instead of using threats or attacking the c h i l d ' s personality, adults should attack the event, the problem, or the situation by describing what they see, how they f e e l , what they expect, and what needs to be done. Thus, when two boys mess up the classroom by making "b u l l e t s " out of bread and throwing them at each other, the teacher could say "I get angry when I see bread made into b u l l e t s . Bread i s not for throwing. This room needs immediate cleaning." rather than "You two slobs! Clean i t up now! You are not f i t to l i v e in a pigsty. I want to talk to your parents about your disgusting behavior!" (Ginott, 1972, pp.73-74). In short, Ginott's idea emphasizes the adult's demonstration of understanding and acceptance of the c h i l d while at the same time he i s attacking the event or problem created by the c h i l d . Adult communication that attacks the child ' s personality or character, that shames, blames, i n s u l t s , or threats, according to Ginott, w i l l be i n e f f e c t i v e in gaining children's cooperation or changing their behavior. The present study was, in part, an attempt to test the v i a b i l i t y of t h i s idea in view of i t s important educational implications. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s study attempted to determine whether an adult whose speech communicated understanding and acceptance of a c h i l d in a c o n f l i c t situation would be better l i k e d by, and subsequently e l i c i t more cooperation in the form 52 of helping behaviors from, children p a r t i c i p a t i n g in this study than an adult whose speech did not communicate understanding and acceptance of the c h i l d . It should be noted here that individuals who demonstrate understanding and acceptance of other people are more l i k e l y to be seen as "nice" and better l i k e d by children, or for that matter, by adults as well. They are more l i k e l y to be described as having an "attractive personality," i . e . , to be pleasant, agreeable, and so on. The term "nice" therefore i s used in this and subsequent chapters to mean "having an a t t r a c t i v e personality." Personality Attractiveness The e f f e c t s of personality attractiveness or l i k i n g on peoples', especially children's, helping behavior have been largely ignored. From the l i t t l e research that has been reported in this area, however, there is evidence to suggest that help i s more readily given to someone who has an a t t r a c t i v e personality, or i s l i k e d , than to someone who has an unattractive personality, or i s d i s l i k e d . In one study, Regan (1971) had college students waiting with a confederate in what was supposed to be a study of art appreciation. The confederate, upon hearing a telephone c a l l , answered either in a pleasant or an unpleasant manner ("Look, I don't work here, lady, for chrissake just c a l l back later ") as he hung up in the middle of the conversation. This treatment presumably l e f t the subjects with someone who was either pleasant or unpleasant. The experimenter then appeared and had the subjects.and the confederate rate various paintings. 53 During what appeared to be a pause in the experiment, the confederate either did a favor for the subject (bought him a coke) or did nothing. As a control in a t h i r d group, the experimenter performed the favor by bringing cokes. Following another task with the paintings, there was a second pause in the experiment during which the confederate made a request - asking the subjects to buy r a f f l e t i c k e t s to help his home town high school build a gym. Supposedly, i f he managed to s e l l the most ti c k e t s , he would win a $50 p r i z e . The results showed that there was a tendency for the pleasant confederate to obtain more compliance from the subjects than the unpleasant one, although the greatest effect came from the favor manipulation - subjects bought s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r a f f l e t i c k e t s from the confederate who had previously performed a favor. If performing a favor by a person can be used to influence one's perception of the personality attractiveness of that person, then the confederate who did a favor in the study might be perceived by the subjects as having a nice personality and hence was helped more. In another study, Kriss, Indenbaum and Tesch (1974) investigated subjects' helping behavior towards a driver stranded on the highway. Presumably, the car broke down and the driver c a l l e d the subject. He mentioned to the subject that he c a l l e d "Ralph's Garage" but got the wrong number. He told the subject that he had just used his last dime and asked the subject to c a l l the garage for him. He made the request either in a straightforward manner (Would you please c a l l my garage for 54 me?) or in a s l i g h t l y obnoxious manner (Look, think how you feel i f you were in a similar position and you weren't helped. So please c a l l my garage for me). The results showed that the driver was more l i k e l y to be l e f t stranded i f he made an "obnoxious" request than i f he made a "straightforward" request. One explanation for thi s finding i s that the obnoxious request r e f l e c t e d the unattractive personality of the driver and hence induced less helping hehavior from the subjects. It should be noted, however, that in both the Regan (1971) and the Kriss et a l . (1974) studies, the relationship being studied can be regarded as between personality attractiveness and helping behavior. The popular notion that people who have an at t r a c t i v e personality are better l i k e d was not examined there because no measures of l i k i n g , as i t was influenced by personality attractiveness, was undertaken. This means that while the findings seem to indicate that personality attractiveness influences helping behavior, the relationship between personality attractiveness and l i k i n g remains to be determined. The relationship between l i k i n g and helping behavior was investigated in one study by Baron (1971). In that study, l i k i n g toward a confederate was manipulated by t e l l i n g subjects that the confederate had attitudes either similar or di s s i m i l a r to the subjects and had rated the subjects as either high in int e l l i g e n c e and maturity and had written a f l a t t e r i n g description of them, or rated them negatively and had written an unfl a t t e r i n g description of them. Presumably, l i k i n g was 55 introduced in the subjects such that they either l i k e d the confederate (similar attitude, p o s i t i v e evaluation) or d i s l i k e d her (dissimilar attitude, negative evaluation). At t h i s , point, the experimenter l e f t the room, leading the subjects to believe that the experiment was over. The confederate then made one of three requests to the subjects: a) Small request - she asked the subject to return a notebook to a g i r l who l i v e d in the subject's dormitory; b) Moderate request - she asked the subject to return several books to the l i b r a r y for her; and c) Large request - she asked the subject to return several books to the li b r a r y and then check them out in her own name, and hold them u n t i l she came by to get them. The results were quite clearcut: the " l i k e d " confederate was helped by a l l but one subject. The " d i s l i k e d " confederate, on the other hand, was helped only when the request was small, one requiring l i t t l e e f f o r t . These findings are consistent with the idea that one tends to help those whom one l i k e s more than those whom one d i s l i k e s . One could argue here, however, that in this study there was no direct measure indicating that l i k i n g was, indeed, successfully induced in the subjects ( i . e . , whether subjects indeed l i k e d one confederate and d i s l i k e d the other). Nevertheless, the findings discussed above suggest that both personality attractiveness and l i k i n g tend to influence peoples' helping behavior although the relationship between personality attractiveness and l i k i n g has not been e x p l i c i t l y investigated and thus remains to be determined. Also, i t should be noted here that the findings discussed 56 above were a l l based on studies using adult subjects. Further, the "recipients" in the studies a l l shared, in some way, what appears to be a rather contrived relationship with the subjects (as, for example, partners in an experiment or in a telephone conversation). Whether this relationship holds up among children with regard to more natural recipients (e.g., a needy person unknown to the subjects), however, remains to be seen. To date, very few studies with children in this area have been reported. Two published studies that come close to t h i s topic both appeared to have manipulated l i k i n g or personality attractiveness only i n d i r e c t l y . Thus, in their study with 9-year-olds, Staub and Sherk (1970) -found that the subjects shared a crayon with their friends longer than with their "nonfriends" (those who were not close friends of the subjects). Further, i t was found that subjects were more w i l l i n g to share their crayons with nonfriends who had previously given some candy to them than with nonfriends who had refused to give candy to them. In another study, Masters (1971) found nursery school children also tended to give more valuable tokens (which they won in a game and could be exchanged for prizes) to an absent friend than to another absent c h i l d who had previously worked as his partner in the game. If friends, or persons who are generous, can be regarded as better l i k e d , or more "a t t r a c t i v e " , than nonfriends or those who are s e l f i s h , then the findings appear to indicate that l i k i n g , or personality attractiveness, influences helping behavior in children as well. One should note, however, that in both of the above two 57 studies, l i k i n g , or attractiveness, was manipulated only i n d i r e c t l y . It was largely inferred from the children's personal relationship with the rec i p i e n t s , who were people already known to them as friends or partners. Further, these two studies, along with the ones conducted by Baron (1971), Regan (1971), and Rriss et a l . (1974), which were discussed e a r l i e r , had made no e x p l i c i t attempts to determine i f the subjects indeed " l i k e d " the apparently " a t t r a c t i v e " recipient and d i s l i k e d the apparently "unattractive" r e c i p i e n t . Treatment Manipulations and Hypothesis Because of the considerations just noted, i t was, therefore, decided to examine further whether personality attractiveness, indeed, influences l i k i n g and helping behaviors in children in the case of an elderly person t o t a l l y unknown to them. In addition, the v i a b i l i t y of Ginott's idea of congruent communication was put to test as well. To accomplish t h i s dual objective, two levels of understanding and acceptance (personality attractiveness) were manipulated in th i s study. In the high understanding and acceptance condition, Mr. Brown was described to the subjects as a "nice" person who talked to a c h i l d who broke his window while playing baseball on the street and to another c h i l d who forgot to deliver his paper in an understanding and accepting manner. In the low understanding and acceptance condition, Mr. Brown was described to the subjects as a "mean" person who talked to the same two children in an unsympathetic and threatening manner. A complete description of the two (high vs. low) levels of understanding and acceptance (personality attractiveness) is 58 reproduced in Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively. These two levels of treatments permitted a comparison to be made between the effects of an understanding and accepting speech and those of an incompassionate and threatening speech. If Ginott's idea of congruent communication i s correct, in other words, i f personality attractiveness influences children's helping behaviors, then one would expect some observable differences in children's response to the treatment to emerge. On the basis of this reasoning and the findings, discussed e a r l i e r , on personality attractiveness and l i k i n g and helping behaviors, i t was therefore . predicted that subjects would be more helpful and would also indicate more l i k i n g toward the " a t t r a c t i v e " Mr. Brown, who was described as having high understanding and acceptance , than toward the "unattractive" Mr, Brown, who was described as having low understanding and acceptance. To simplify subsequent labeling, the term "understanding and acceptance" w i l l be replaced hereafter by the term "attractiveness." Henceforth, "high attractiveness" i s to mean high understanding and acceptance and "low attractiveness" low understanding and acceptance. INTERACTION OF VARIABLES As can be seen from the discussions presented above, findings from studies indicate that induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness a l l appeared to influence children's helping behaviors though the evidence i s by no means conclusive. It should be noted, however, that while a l l three variables are related to children's helping behaviors, 59 they have d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As discussed e a r l i e r in thi s chapter and also in Chapter I, deservingness and personality attractiveness are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential recipient while induction is a dire c t attempt from a t h i r d party to influence the c h i l d . Given induction is a concerted e f f o r t to influence the c h i l d and has been found to influence children's helping behaviors while deservingness and personality attractiveness are not concerted e f f o r t s , one might have somewhat di f f e r e n t expectations about the effects of these three variables. S p e c i f i c a l l y , one might expect that induction would not only influence children's helping behaviors regardless of the deservingness and/or personality attractiveness of the potential recipient, but would also interact with these two variables such that children who were given induction would be more helpful to an undeserving and/or "unattractive" recipient while those without induction would be more helpful to a deserving and/or " a t t r a c t i v e " recipient. With regard to deservingness and personality attractiveness, on the other hand, one would expect the former to be r e l a t i v e l y more i n f l u e n t i a l than the l a t t e r given the former s p e c i f i c a l l y defines worthiness of 'help, reward, etc. while the l a t t e r is a more general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a person. On the basis of this reasoning and the discussions presented in Chapter I, the following expectation was made: Both deservingness and personality attractiveness would not only influence children's helping behaviors singly but also would interact with each other such that children would be equally helpful to an " a t t r a c t i v e " and an "unattractive" person given 6 0 high deservingness but would be more helpful to an " a t t r a c t i v e " than an "unattractive" person given low deservingness. Since participants in t h i s study included children of both sexes, gender of subjects was included as a c l a s s i f i c a t o r y variable. Interactions involving gender, however, were not predicted because there was no clear evidence to j u s t i f y such predictions. RATIONALE FOR USING AN ELDERLY PERSON AS RECIPIENT Since the recipients in most studies on children's a l t r u i s t i c behavior have been children and since studies (e.g., W i l l i s , Feldman, & Rubble, 1977) have found children to be more generous toward recipients perceived to be agewise similar to themselves ( i . e . , other children) than toward those perceived to be d i s s i m i l a r to themselves (adults), the present study attempted to determine what form children's responses would take when the beneficiary of their a l t r u i s t i c actions was a senior c i t i z e n . Also, because this study attempted to test Ginott's idea of "congruent communication" between adults and children, i t appeared that an adult - a senior c i t i z e n in the present case - would be a proper choice for the role of the recipient. Moreover, a senior c i t i z e n was introduced into the treatment conditions because the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by many elderly people do not appear to be well-understood by younger people, and their needs and rights often seem to be ignored (AVER, 1978a). By having an elderly person as the recipient and by r e l a t i n g the induction content to the circumstances of needy senior c i t i z e n s , i t was hoped that at least some of their d i f f i c u l t i e s and needs were brought to the attention of the 61 p a r t i c i p a t i n g children who otherwise might not have an opportunity to gain this understanding. Conceivably, the sex and e t h n i c i t y of the potential recipient could d i f f e r e n t i a l l y influence children's helping behaviors. But since the present study was not designed to examine these d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s , i t appeared best to hold the sex and e t h n i c i t y of the potential recipient constant. The potential recipient - Mr. Brown - was, therefore, described to a l l subjects as an elderly Caucasian man both verbally and by means of a picture. To enhance the saliency and psychological r e a l i t y of Mr. Brown, the children were told that Mr. Brown l i v e d in the neighborhood of one of the experimenters. RATIONALE FOR USING CHILDREN AS SUBJECTS The present study was concerned with a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children rather than adolescents or adults partly because i t appears that our present l e v e l of knowledge about the ways in which children respond to s o c i a l influence is s t i l l quite scanty and partly because i t seems that the moral thinking of today's children w i l l , to a large extent, determine the moral outlook of society in the future. Indeed, as Papalia and Olds (1975) put i t , i t i s only by learning how children respond to the influences around them can we offer them a better education, a better home environment, and a better start in l i f e . This, in turn, w i l l better equip them to f u l f i l l their individual potential and to help them f u l f i l l the potential of society by creating a better world. Intermediate (grades five and six) children were used in this study for two reasons. F i r s t , they were the only ones 62 available to the investigator at the time the study was conducted. Second, given the verbal tasks featured in t h i s study, children of younger age lev e l s might have d i f f i c u l t y comprehending them and making the appropriate responses, and they were therefore not used in t h i s study. HYPOTHESES REGARDING GENDER AND AGE EFFECTS Findings on the effects of gender and age on children's a l t r u i s t i c behavior have been generally consistent, though by no means conclusive. Reviews by Bryan (1975) and Rushton (1976) showed that older children tended to be generally more a l t r u i s t i c (donate, share, and help more) than younger children and that the gender of children generally did not influence their a l t r u i s t i c behavior. When gender differences did emerge, however, they were usually found to favor the female gender. These observations are supported by findings from more recent studies (e.g.,• Grusec, Kuczynski, Rushton, & Simutis, 1978; Grusec, Saas-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979). Since participants in this study included children of both sexes, i t was therefore decided to include gender as a c l a s s i f i c a t o r y factor in the study. Age was not included as a factor in the data analysis for two reasons. F i r s t , subjects available for the study were from the adjacent grades of fiv e and six in private schools. This suggests that they were too close in age for developmental differences to be meaningfully analysed. Second, i t seemed possible that many children in adjacent grades in private schools were of the same age (school records for the subjects were not available to the inves t i g a t o r ) . If so, this would 6 3 further reduce the age difference among the subjects even though they were from two di f f e r e n t grades. Because of these considerations, age was not included as a factor in the data analysis. With regard to the eff e c t s of gender, then, the present study hypothesized, in accordance with the general finding reported in the l i t e r a t u r e , that there would be no gender differences in the dependent measures among the subjects in this study. SUMMARY AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES The above introduction, reviews of research, and discussions of problems to be addressed in the present study may be summarized into the following five major questions and issues. F i r s t , "given the available findings on the "induction" l i t e r a t u r e , what kind of methodological improvements could be made in order to obtain more d e f i n i t e information as to whether experimental induction influence children's helping behaviors? The second issue revolved around the notion of deservingness in children. In p a r t i c u l a r , the question was raised as to whether children's feelings of recipient deservingness of help influence their helping behaviors. The t h i r d question was concerned with the v i a b i l i t y of Ginott's idea of congruent communication and the effects of personality attractiveness on children's l i k i n g and helping behaviors. The fourth question dealt with the effe c t s of gender of the subjects on their helping behaviors. The f i f t h question was focused on the possible interactions among the four variables being examined in the present study. 64 This last question was formulated because e a r l i e r discussions in thi s chapter and in Chapter I suggest that the effects of induction might interact with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (deservingness and personality attractiveness) of the potential r e c i p i e n t . These f i v e major questions/issues can be translated into the following research hypotheses on the basis of discussions presented e a r l i e r in this chapter and in Chapter I: 1. Induction, i . e . , reasoning with children, would increase their helping behaviors toward people; 2. Children would be more helpful toward people they perceive to be deserving of their help than toward people they perceive to be undeserving of thei r help; 3. Children would be more helpful toward people who have an a t t r a c t i v e personality than toward people who have an unattractive personality; 4. The gender, of subjects would not make a difference in their helping behaviors; 5. Children who were given induction and those who were not given induction would be equally helpful toward deserving people while children who were given induction would be more helpful than those not given induction toward undeserving people; 6. Children who were given induction and those who were not given induction would be equally helpful toward people with an a t t r a c t i v e personality while children who were given induction would be more helpful than those not given induction toward people with an unattractive 65 personality; 7. Children would be equally helpful to " a t t r a c t i v e " and "unattractive" people given high deservingness but would be more helpful to " a t t r a c t i v e " than "unattractive" people given low deservingness. To test these hypotheses, taking into account the various the o r e t i c a l and methodological issues raised e a r l i e r , the research methodology to be described in the next chapter was used. 66 CHAPTER III Method Design. A 2x2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l design was used for this study. The factors included: induction (induction vs. control, i . e . , induction statements being replaced by non-induction statements); deservingness (high and low); and personality attractiveness (high and low). These three treatment variables are described in Appendices A through E. In addition to these three experimental variables, gender (boys vs. g i r l s ) also was defined to be a factor so that results from th i s study might be compared with those from other studies pertaining to t h i s variable. Thus, a t o t a l of 16 groups were def ined. Subjects. Children in the grade five and grade six classes from five Roman Catholic parish schools in the Greater Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, area served as subjects in the study. This p a r t i c u l a r sample of subjects was a l l that were available to the investigator at the time of the experiment. A l l children p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study were from r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s in the greater Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia are'a with "median t o t a l income per family" between $8175 and $9591 ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1970). There were 104 grade f i v e children (52 boys and 52 g i r l s ) and 94 grade six children (41 boys and 53 g i r l s ) in the study. These children were randomly assigned to one of eight treatment conditions. Materials. Each treatment condition was presented as a "story" and was printed on two sheets of l e t t e r - s i z e d paper. Each story 67 began with "This story i s about old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones you saw in the big picture." At t h i s point, the treatment conditions were introduced into the story. The induction/non-induction treatment came f i r s t , followed by the personality attractiveness and deservingness treatments. This order of presentation of treatments permitted the story to be presented in a smooth and l o g i c a l manner. It should be noted that the deservingness and attractiveness portions of the story were f i r s t developed and later refined over a series of "interviews" and " p i l o t studies" with grades f i v e and six children. The version being used in the present study represented the latest revision that managed to e l i c i t from the " p i l o t " subjects variance in the scores and a pattern of responses sat i s f a c t o r y to the investigator. There were nine questions embedded in each story. These nine questions, designed to engage children's attention in the story, to serve as process measures, (manipulation checks), and to provide outcome, or c r i t e r i o n , measures (dependent varia b l e s ) , were interspersed in the appropriate locations of the story. These nine questions are reproduced in Appendix F. Two complete sample stories as examplar texts for treatments, each with the nine questions embedded in i t , are reproduced in the appendices. Appendix G shows a description of the treatment story combining induction, high personality attractiveness, and high deservingness. Appendix H shows a description of the treatment story combining non-induction ( i . e . , c o n t r o l ) , low personality attractiveness, and low 68 deservingness. The two pages of story were stapled together as a single booklet. Two pictures, one showing two elderly men and two elderly women s i t t i n g in a couch and the other, another elderly man, were shown to the children during the course of the experiment. The size of the "group" picture was 11x14" and the size of the "single-man" picture, 8x7". These pictures were used because both the induction and non-induction treatments in the study were concerned with old people and the two pictures were designed to help the children focus their attention to the relevant stimulus aspects. Pre-experimental (Covariate) Questions. To s t a t i s t i c a l l y control for any possible pre-experimental differences among subjects that might have been related to the outcome/criterion measures (dependent va r i a b l e s ) , 10 pre-experimental questions were administered to the subjects. These 10 questions seemed to be most related to the a l t r u i s t i c acts under study and subjects' responses to them were therefore used as covariate measures. S p e c i f i c a l l y , children's indications as to 1. How much 50 cents means to them; 2. How much five d o l l a r s means to them; 3. How much they enjoy writing s t o r i e s ; 4. How much they enjoy reading comic s t r i p s ; 5. Whether we should be helpful to the elderly (people 70 years or older) who need our help; 6. Whether we should be helpful to poor children; 7. Whether we should be generous to the el d e r l y (people 70 years or older) who need our help; 8. Whether we should be generous to poor children; 9. Whether their grandparents l i v e with them; 10. Whether they v i s i t with or work for el d e r l y people were obtained as covariate measures. Subjects' answers to these 10 covariate questions were obtained by means of a questionnaire containing these 10 questions. Four questions, namely, Questions 69 2, 4, 6 and 8, were included to make the intent of the other six questions, a l l concerned with elderly people, less obvious to the subjects. These 10 questions, reproduced in Appendix I, were administered to the subjects immediately before the treatments were applied. In addition, each c h i l d ' s reading l e v e l was also obtained at the beginning of the experiment by means of the Comprehension Test of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (Survey D, Form 1). This reading comprehension test has a reported s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of .94 at the grade four l e v e l ; .96 at the grade fi v e l e v e l ; and .95 at the grade six l e v e l . In addition, i t has a reported c o r r e l a t i o n of .60, .76, and .-72 with the Lorge-Thorndike Verbal IQ for the grade four, grade f i v e , and grade six l e v e l , respectively (Gates & MacGinitie, 1965). This comprehension test of three pages was stapled to the page containing the 10 covariate questions noted above, as one single booklet. Test ing Environment. The study was conducted using intact classes because there was no p r a c t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y for ind i v i d u a l , or even small-group, administration of the tasks. The experiment was conducted in the subjects' classrooms. This was done partly to minimize the time required to transfer the students from one location to another, to provide a more natural and familiar environment to the subjects, to minimize the disruptions that might occur within and outside the classroom, and f i n a l l y because other rooms in the schools suitable for the experiment were not available. At the beginning of the experiment, the desks were 70 rearranged into rows so that the children would s i t as far apart from one another as was possible. This was done to minimize any possible influence that might arise from the physical proximity of the subjects' classmates and/or their friends. Procedure. The study was conducted using a group-administration procedure. After the two experimenters entered the subjects' classroom, Experimenter A, a Caucasian woman in her early t h i r t i e s , introduced herself as Mrs. Mac and Experimenter B, a non-Caucasian male graduate student, to the c l a s s . She (Experimenter A) told the class that they had come to request their help on some projects and asked experimenter B to talk to the class f i r s t . Experimenter B then t o l d the subjects that he went to school at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia and was a good friend of Mrs. Mac's. Since Mrs. Mac told him sometime ago that she would be coming to the schools, he thought i t would be a good idea for him to come along so that he could ask for the children's help with a project he had been working on. He told the subjects that his project had nothing to do with Mrs. Mac's and because his project took more time, Mrs. Mac had agreed to l e t him do the f i r s t part of his project with the children before she would talk to them about hers. She would then l e t him f i n i s h his project with the children. He told the class that they would be there for about an hour. Experimenter B told the children that i t would be best for his project i f they could s i t as far apart from one another as possible and therefore he would l i k e to rearrange the desks into rows. Having rearranged the desks, he t o l d the subjects to clear their desk tops and have only a pencil and an eraser on the 71 desk. He then told the subjects that his project had two parts. The f i r s t part was to find out how children f e e l about certain things and how well they could read and understand s t o r i e s . He, with the help of Experimenter A, then passed out the booklet containing the four pages of covariate measures - the covariate information sheet (page 1) and the Comprehension Test of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (pages 2 to 4) - to the children. The children were instructed to c i r c l e B i f they were boys and c i r c l e G i f they were g i r l s at the bottom right-hand corner of the covariate information sheet. He told the children not to write their names down since he did not need to know who answered what. He told them that a l l he needed to know was how dif f e r e n t c h i l d r n f e e l about certain things. He to l d the children to read the questions on the f i r s t page to themselves s i l e n t l y while he read them out loud to them and underline the answer that showed how they f e l t . He reminded the children that d i f f e r e n t people might have d i f f e r e n t feelings about the same thing and asked them to therefore answer the questions completely on their own without looking at another person's answers. When the f i r s t page of the booklet ( i . e . , the 10 covariate questions) was completed, the children were instructed to turn to the second page of the booklet. They were to l d that on thi s and the next two pages, he would l i k e to find out how well children could read and understand s t o r i e s . They were told to write their names at the top of the second page and were then administered the reading comprehension test, a task of 25 minute's duration. 72 Following the completion of the reading comprehension test, Experimenter A took over. She told the subjects that her project was more fun and had to do with coloring. She to l d the children that she worked for a "foster-parent agency1' and thi s year they decided to send personally colored greeting pictures to the homeless children under their care in A f r i c a , Asia and South America at Christmas. She t o l d the subjects that she needed some Canadian children to help with the coloring. She then showed a sample of the pictures to the class and told them to be careful with the pictures when they got them. The children were to l d not to write anything on the pictures but could color them with f e l t pens, pencil crayons, whatever they wanted. She, with the help of Experimenter B, then passed out the pictures and urged the children to do a good job. . After the pictures had been passed out, the children were tol d that for their assistance, they would each be paid 50 cents. She showed them a r o l l of 50 cents wrapped in aluminum f o i l and apologized that the money was a l l in nickels because that was what the bank gave her. She told the subjects to check that each should have 10 nickels when they got their money and then proceeded to d i s t r i b u t e the r o l l s of nickels,' with Experimenter B helping out. The subjects were e x p l i c i t l y t o l d that they could buy candies or do whatever they l i k e to do with the money since i t was their money and they earned i t by help coloring the pictures. The subjects were told that they could start coloring the pictures immediately but she would come back Monday to c o l l e c t them so that everybody would have plenty of time to do the work. While the children were coloring, 73 Experimenter A walked around the classroom, checking them out. After about eight minutes of coloring, she told the subjects that she had to be on her way, thanked the subjects for their help, and l e f t the room. At th i s point, Experimenter B took over and t o l d the subjects: "Children, may I have your attention please. The coloring probably w i l l take a while to f i n i s h . Since I don't have much time to be with you and since Mrs. Mac would be c o l l e c t i n g the pictures on Monday, would you please put them aside for just a l i t t l e while so that I can f i n i s h my project with you? "This, the l a s t part of my project, is concerned with old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones in th i s p i c t u r e , (show group picture to c l a s s ) . Can you a l l see i t ? I ' l l put i t here so that you can see i t . (put picture in the front of the room). What I would l i k e to find out i s how school children feel about old people. Also, I want to find out how school children f e e l about an old person who l i v e s in my neighborhood. This elderly person is Mr. Brown, and I have brought along a picture of him to show you (show single-man picture to c l a s s ) . This i s Mr. Brown. He l i v e s in my neighborhood. Can you a l l see him? I ' l l put the picture here, (put picture next to the one shown e a r l i e r ) . "What I would l i k e you to do is read a story about old people and about Mr. Brown very c a r e f u l l y and then show me how you feel about the story by answering some questions. The story, the questions, and the answers are a l l in th i s booklet (show booklet to c l a s s ) . I w i l l pass out these booklets in just a 74 minute. "Please don't write your name down since I don't need to know who answers what. A l l I need to know i s how di f f e r e n t children f e e l about the story. " A l l you have to do i s read the story very c a r e f u l l y and then answer the questions by drawing a li n e under the answer that shows how you f e e l . "Remember, di f f e r e n t people may have d i f f e r e n t feelings about the same thing, so, please answer the questions completely on your own without looking at another person's answers. "Is t h i s clear? Are there any questions? "Please answer a l l the questions and be very careful with your answers. You cannot change your answers later when I say stop. "You may begin as soon as you get the booklet. When you f i n i s h , please put your booklet upside down l i k e t h i s (show class) and then you may continue with your coloring. Are there any questions?" Experimenter B then passed out the 2-page booklet containing the treatment story and the nine questions which were embedded in i t . As noted before, each story began with the induction treatment, followed by the personality attractiveness and deservingness treatments. The nine questions, reproduced in Appendix F, were embedded in the appropriate locations of the story. This format and order of presentation of treatments permitted the story to be presented in a smooth and l o g i c a l manner. It also was designed to a c t i v e l y engage the children's 75 attention throughout the entire story. After a l l children had finished with the story, Experimenter B then gave an 8 1/2 x 11" envelope to each c h i l d in the clas s , t e l l i n g the class to put their donations in the envelope i_f they f e l t l i k e giving money to help Mr. Brown. After the donations were placed in the envelope, Experimenter B then t o l d the subjects that he had to match the story which they just finished with the one they had read e a r l i e r and they were therefore asked to write their name at the top of the back page of the story and put their story into the envelope as well. The envelopes were then c o l l e c t e d . At t h i s point, Experimenter B asked the children not to talk to one another or to the other children in the school about the story that they just read because i t was "c o n f i d e n t i a l . " He then thanked the subjects for their help and l e f t the room. The instructions as used by Experimenters A and B are reproduced in Appendix J. The entire experimental procedure was designed to make the study appear as natural, uncontrived and as psychologically real to the children as was possible. The eight minutes of picture-coloring, in p a r t i c u l a r , was introduced into the experiment to help the subjects develop the fee l i n g that they were actually earning the 50 cents given to them e a r l i e r for their service. A t o t a l of 10 experimental sessions were held in the five schools during the regular school hours, with two sessions being held in each school in the same morning. The entire experiment was completed in five consecutive mornings, barring from the weekend interruptions. 76 The order as to whether grade five or grade six class within each school received the treatments f i r s t was randomly determined in advance. Because of the nature of the study and teacher opinions, i t was decided that the subjects would not be debriefed about the purpose of the study and that the teachers would c o l l e c t the pictures and the stories pledged by the subjects on behalf of the experimenters on the day due. The pictures and the stories were subsequently returned to the investigator. Outcome/Criterion (Dependent) Measures• Children's answers to the last two questions embedded in the treatment story (Appendix F) served as outcome/criterion (dependent) measures. S p e c i f i c a l l y , children's answers to Question 8 ( i . e . , the average number of stories they pledged to write) and to Question 9 ( i . e . , the average amount of money they pledged to donate) as well as the actual amount of donations they made were the outcome measures. Subjects' pledge to donate and their actual donations were used for outcome measures because they represent di f f e r e n t aspects of helping behavior. S p e c i f i c a l l y , pledging to donate involves "verbal" help while actual donations involve "actual" help although both are monetary in nature. Cash money rather than tokens exchangeable for prizes was used in the present study because i t was f e l t that money would be psychologically more real for the subjects and would approximate r e a l - l i f e helping (donating) situations more closely than other forms of tokens. The amount of 50 cents was chosen for the present study 77 because an amount' below 50 cents may be of very l i t t l e value to intermediate grade children and an amount above i t may give them the impression that i t i s not commensurate with the amount of work required of them. To take into account the p o s s i b i l i t y that subjects might donate more than 50 cents ( i . e . , donating personal money), i t was decided in advance that any amount in excess of the 50 cents given to them would be excluded from the data analysis. This means that the maximum possible amount of donations in the data analysis was 50 cents. This decision was made to control for a possible source of error variance. The number of stories pledged by the subjects was included as an outcome measure because i t would be interesting to see whether the experimental treatments in the study have any effects on a measure of helping that is not monetary in nature. The number of stories the subjects actually turned in (see Question 8, Appendix F) was not used as an outcome measure, however. This decision was based on two considerations. F i r s t , there was some discussion about the nature of the study between the teachers and the children in one school (but not others) soon after the experiment was completed. This discussion was unexpected by the investigator and i t raised the question whether a meaningful analysis can be performed on the number of stories the subjects actually turned in for the experiment. Second, there was no guarantee that the subjects in the other four schools did not discuss with one another about the story they had read after the experiment was completed. Had t h i s occurred, their discussion would c e r t a i n l y have influenced their 78 decision to write the s t o r i e s that they pledged during the experiment. These considerations thus suggested that i t would be best to exclude, as an outcome measure in the data analysis, the number of stories actually turned in by the subjects. Process Measures (Manipulation Checks) subjects' answers to Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7, which were embedded in the treatment story (Appendix F), were also analysed. This set of process measures ( i . e . , answers to the seven questions noted above) was used to check on. the degree of successful manipulation of the three experimental variables (induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness) being examined in this study. 79 CHAPTER IV Results The results are described in t h i s chapter in terms of two categories of measures, process measures, which represent results from the manipulation check questions, and outcome/criterion measures (dependent v a r i a b l e s ) , which formed the c r i t e r i a against which the research hypotheses were tested. PROCESS MEASURES: MANIPULATION CHECKS To determine whether or not induction, recipient deservingness, personality attractiveness, and gender influence subjects' responses to the seven manipulation check questions embedded in the treatment story (Questions 1 through 7 in Appendix F), multidimensional contingency table - The log-linear model - analyses were performed. Because of the nature of subjects' responses to the questions, a constant of .5 was added to the data for the analyses, in accordance with the suggestions of the BMDP program (Dixon & Brown, 1 9 7 9 ) . Induct ion The d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects' responses to manipulation check Questi'on 1 (Should we be helpful to the el d e r l y who need our help?) and Question 2 (Should we be generous to the elderly who need our help?) - which were designed to gauge the effectiveness of the induction treatment - i s shown in Table 1. Insert Table 1 about here Results from the multidimensional contingency table (MCT) analyses showed that subjects' responses to Questions 1 and 2 80 were not influenced by any of the four independent variables i n d i v i d u a l l y or in combination with one another. These results therefore indicate that regardless of the gender of the subjects or the experimental condition to which they were exposed, the subjects f e l t equally strongly that one should be helpful and generous to the elderly who need help. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t should be noted that there is no difference between boys and g i r l s and between subjects exposed to the induction and non-induction (control) conditions in their expressed feelings about being helpful and generous to the elderly who need help. Personality Attractiveness Manipulation check Question 3 (Do you think children w i l l l i k e Mr. Brown?) and Question 4 (Do you think you w i l l l i k e someone as nice/mean as Mr. Brown?) were designed to gauge the effectiveness of the personality attractiveness treatment. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects' responses to these two questions i s shown in Table 2. Insert Table 2 about here Results from the MCT analyses on these two questions showed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to Question 3 and personality attractiveness of the potential recipient, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=153.54, df=2, p<0.00l; and between subjects' responses to Question 4 and personality attractiveness of the potential recipient, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o c h i -square= 1 71 .1 6, df = 2, p_<0.00l. These are shown in Table 3. 81 Insert Table 3 about here The s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to Question 3 and personality attractiveness, as shown in Table 3, shows that subjects' responses to this question were r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness treatment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t indicates that the recipient described as having an a t t r a c t i v e ( i . e . , nice) personality was regarded by the subjects as r e l i a b l y better l i k e d by children than the recipient described as having an unattractive ( i . e . , mean) personality. This also suggests that the attractiveness treatment in the present study was noticeable and regarded by the subjects in the manner expected. The s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to Question 4 and personality attractiveness of the potential recipient, as shown in Table 3, shows that subjects' responses to th i s question were r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness treatment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t indicates that the recipient described as having an at t r a c t i v e (nice) personality was r e l i a b l y better l i k e d by the subjects than a recipient described as having an unattractive (mean) personality. Subjects' responses to Question 4 thus serve as further evidence to indicate that the personality attractiveness treatment in the present study has achieved i t s intended e f f e c t . Taken together, subjects' responses to Questions 3 and 4 indicate that the personality attractiveness treatment in the present study was functioning according to expectations. In addition, they provide clear experimental evidence to show that 82 people who have an a t t r a c t i v e personality, at least as operationalized in this study, are l i k e d and people who have an unattractive personality are d i s l i k e d by children. Recipient Deservingness Manipulation check Question 5 (How did Mr. Brown get his re f r i g e r a t o r ? ) , Question 6 (Who damaged the r e f r i g e r a t o r ? ) , and Question 7 (Does Mr. Brown deserve another refrigerator?) were designed to gauge the effectiveness of the deservingness treatment. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects' responses to these three questions i s shown in Table 4. Insert Table 4 about here Results from the MCT analysis for Question 5 showed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to t h i s question and recipient deservingness, l i k e l i h o o d ratio chi-square=185.79, df=1, 2 < 0 ' 0 0 l « This is shown in Table 5. Insert Table 5 about here The s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to Question 5 and recipient deservingness, as shown in Table 5, indicates that a l l but seven of the subjects in the study c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d how Mr. Brown obtained his re f r i g e r a t o r . This result i s , therefore, consistent with treatment expectations. Results from the MCT analysis of Question 6 showed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses 83 to t h i s question and recipient deservingness, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=75.89, df=1, £<0.001. This s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects' responses to Question 6 and recipient deservingness, as shown in Table 5, thus indicates that 158 of the 195 subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g in this study c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d the person who damaged the r e f r i g e r a t o r . This, again, i s consistent with treatment expectations. Results from the MCT analysis of Question 7 showed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e interaction between subjects* responses to t h i s question and recipient deservingness, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square = 60.52, df = 2, p_<0.00l; between subjects' responses to thi s question and personality attractiveness, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=36.80, df_=2, p_<0.00l; and among subjects' responses to t h i s question and recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=7.79, d_f = 2, p_<0.02. The interaction between subjects' responses to Question 7 and deservingness i s consistent with treatment expectations. It shows that subjects' responses to th i s question were r e l i a b l y influenced by the deservingness treatment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t indicates that the recipient described as deserving or undeserving in the present study was perceived accordingly by the subjects, as can be seen from the data in Table 6. Insert Table 6 about here The interaction between subjects' responses to Question 7 and recipient personality attractiveness, as shown in Table 6, is i n t e r e s t i n g . It shows that subjects' responses to th i s 84 question were r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness treatment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t indicates that when a person had an a t t r a c t i v e personality, as operationalized in this study, he was seen as deserving, and when he had an unattractive personality, he was seen as undeserving. This, therefore, suggests that subjects' perception of the deservingness of help of a potential recipient i s influenced by the personality attractiveness of that potential r e c i p i e n t . The interaction among subjects' responses to Question 7 and recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness, shown in Table 6, indicates that subjects' responses to this question were j o i n t l y influenced by the deservingness and personality attractiveness treatments such that regardless of the deservingness of a person, the one with an a t t r a c t i v e personality was perceived as more deserving than the one with an unattractive personality. The results described above thus indicate that subjects' perception of deservingness of help varied as a function of not only the deservingness of the potential recipient but also the personality attractiveness of that potential r e c i p i e n t . By and large, results from the above MCT analyses on the process measures, which were c a r r i e d out as manipulation checks, indicate that gender of the subjects did not r e l i a b l y influence their responses to the seven manipulation check questions embedded in the treatment story and the experimental treatments (deservingness and personality attractiveness) in the present study were functioning according to expectations. 85 DEPENDENCE/INDEPENDENCE AMONG PROCESS MEASURES To determine the consistency with which subjects responded to the seven manipulation check questions embedded in the treatment story, that i s , the extent of dependence/independence among the process measures, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square s t a t i s t i c s were computed. The results are presented in Table 7. Insert Table 7 about here As can be seen from Table 7, highly r e l i a b l e dependence existed between subjects' responses to Questions 1 and 2, li k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=77.52, df=9, £<0.001; between Questions 3 and 4, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=180.79, df=4, P_<0.001; between Questions 3 and 7, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o c h i -square=25.44, df=4, g<0.00l; between Questions 4 and 7, li k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=28.49, df=4, £<0.001; between Questions 5 and 6, l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=88.77, df=1, P_<0.001; between Questions 5 and 7, l i k e l i h o o d ratio c h i -square=63.22, df=2, p<0.00l; and between Questions 6 and 7, li k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square=56.89, df=2, p<0.00l. These indices of dependence indicate that there was great "consistency" among subjects in their response to questions designed to gauge the effectiveness of s p e c i f i c variables manipulated in the present study. They also indicate that the three sets of questions - Questions 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5, 6, and 7 - which were designed to gauge the effectiveness of three d i f f e r e n t variables, were a l l functioning according to expectations. The s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e dependence between Questions 3 86 and 7 and between Questions 4 and 7 (li k e l i h o o d r a t i o c h i -squares=25.44 and 28.49, respectively, df = 4, p_<0.00l for both cases - see Table 8 for the exact d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses) deserves special attention. Insert Table 8 about here These two indices of dependence and the data in Table 8 suggest that subjects who answered Questions 3 or 4 favorably also tended to answer Question 7 favorably. Conversely, i f they answered Questions 3 or 4 unfavorably, they also tended to answer Question 7 unfavorably. This means that i f they f e l t Mr. Brown was personally a t t r a c t i v e , they also tended to feel that he was.deserving. And i f they f e l t that Mr. Brown was personally unattractive, they also tended to f e e l that he was undeserving. These findings are reminiscent of the r e s u l t s , discussed e a r l i e r , from the MCT analyses for Question 7, which was designed to measure subjects' perception of deservingness. In the MCT analyses, subjects' responses to Question 7 were found to be r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness treatment. These findings thus suggest that subjects tend to perceive the recipient's deservingness of help from the perspective of the recipient's personality attractiveness. If the recipient has an a t t r a c t i v e personality, he is seen as deserving. If the recipient has an unattractive personality, he i s seen as undeserving. (Since "correlation" i s not causation, one might, of course, argue from the opposite d i r e c t i o n . However, given the 87 context of the present study, one might find the l a t t e r argument less convincing.) OUTCOME MEASURES: RESEARCH HYPOTHESES The independent variables in the present study were induction, recipient deservingness and personality attractiveness, as manipulated in the treatment stories (see Appendices G and H). In addition, the gender of the subjects was used as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n variable. The outcome/criterion measures (dependent variables) in the present study were subjects' responses to the last two questions (see Questions 8 and 9 in Appendix F) embedded in the treatment story. S p e c i f i c a l l y , subjects' responses to these two questions and their actual donations were used as outcome measures. (Their responses to Questions 1 through 7 were used as process measures, i . e . , manipulation checks, as already discussed). Subjects' reading comprehension scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests and their responses to the 10 pre-experimental questions (Appendix I) were used as covariate measures. As discussed in Chapter I I I , these covariate measures were considered to be most related to the a l t r u i s t i c acts under study and were used to s t a t i s t i c a l l y control for any possible pre-experimental differences among subjects' that might have been related to the outcome/criterion measures. To test for homogeneity of regression c o e f f i c i e n t s ( i . e . , lack of interaction between the independent variables and the covariates), a 3-way (induction x deservingness x attractiveness) MANCOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Covariance) 88 with a l l 11 covariates was performed using the MULTIVARIANCE program developed by Finn (1977). A 3-way rather than a 4-way ( i . e . , including gender as a factor) MANCOVA was performed because some c e l l sizes in the l a t t e r were smaller than expected (less than 11 - the t o t a l number of covariates) and hence did not meet . the requirements for a regression p a r a l l e l i s m test. (Prior to the regression p a r a l l e l i s m test, Bartlett-Box tests of homogeneity of variances were performed on the three dependent measures and the results showed that the variances among the eight groups can be regarded as homogeneous: F's(7,187)=0.38, 0.59, 0.87, p_'s<0.92, 0.78, 0.54, respectively, for pledged st o r i e s , pledged donations, and actual donations). The regression p a r a l l e l i s m test showed that there was no interaction between the 11 covariates and the three independent variables, F's(77,99)=1.03, 1.31, and 1.06, p_'s<0.45, 0.10, and 0.39, respectively, for pledged st o r i e s , pledged donations, and actual donations; multivariate F(23 1 , 292) =0 .97 , p_<0.61. Also, results from t h i s 3-way MANCOVA analysis showed that covariate 3 (How much do you enjoy writing stories?) and covariate 6 (Should we be helpful to poor children?) were the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e covariates for children's pledged st o r i e s , F ' s ( 1 , 1 76) =4 . 40 , 5.71, p_'s<0.04, 0.02, respectively. Covariate 3 was also found to covary r e l i a b l y with subjects' actual donations, F(1,176)=4.28, p<0.04. None of the 11 covariates, however, was found to covary s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l y with the subjects' pledge to donate earnings. The means and the error mean squares from t h i s 3-way 89 MANCOVA analysis are presented in Table 9. Insert Table 9 about here These findings thus indicate that with the exception of subjects' indications as to how much they enjoyed writing stories (covariate 3) and whether one should be helpful to poor children (covariate 6), a l l other covariate measures, including reading a b i l i t y , did not r e l i a b l y influence subjects' responses to the three outcome measures. The finding that subjects' reading l e v e l was not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e covariate measure should be noted especially given the heavy reliance of the present study on student's reading a b i l i t y . This finding a l l e v i a t e s one's concern for the possible influence of subjects' reading l e v e l s on their responses to the treatment manipulations. For the f i n a l presentation of data, a 4-way (induction x deservingness x attractiveness x gender) MANCOVA was performed with subjects' indications as to how much they enjoyed writing stories (covariate 3) and whether one should be helpful to poor children (covariate 6) as covariate measures. (Bartlett-Box tests for homogeneity of variances in the three outcome measures were performed among the 16 groups resulting from the f a c t o r i a l combinations of the four independent variables. The results indicated homogeneity of variances among the 16 groups' pledge to contribute stories, to donate earnings, and actual donations of earnings: F's(15,179)=1.13, 0.43, 0.57, p_'s<0.32, 0.98, 0.90, respectively.) This 4-way MANCOVA could not be completed as the error message (Error Message No. 128) from the MULTIVARIANCE 90 program (Finn, 1977) indicated a dependency between the two covariates. A subsequent inspection of the raw data showed that one of the 16 groups had zero variance ( i . e . , same scores) in covariate 6 (Should we be helpful to poor children?). Because the program error message suggested that one of the covariates be removed or observations be added to destroy the dependency between these two measures, i t was decided to remove subjects' responses to covariate question 6 (Should we be helpful to poor children?) from the analysis. This covariate was removed while subjects' indications as to how much they enjoyed writing stories (covariate 3) was retained for analysis because of dependency ( i . e . , no variance) considerations. Results from th i s f i n a l 4-way MANCOVA analysis with subjects' indications as to how much they enjoyed writing stories as a covariate measure are discussed as follows. The means and error mean squares from t h i s 4-way MANCOVA analysis are presented in Table 10. Other related s t a t i s t i c s (e.g., mean squares, F-ratios) for the three dependent measures are presented in the summary table in Appendix K. Insert Table 10 about here Induct ion The hypothesis concerning the effects of induction was not supported as no r e l i a b l e multivariate or univariate main or interaction e f f e c t s involving induction were observed. The related s t a t i s t i c s (e.g., means, F-ratios) can be seen in Table 10 and Appendix K. 91 Personality Attractiveness As no r e l i a b l e multivariate main or interaction effects involving personality attractiveness were observed, an examination of the univariate effects was undertaken. This examination revealed a r e l i a b l e univariate main effect of personality attractiveness on subjects' pledge to donate earnings, F ( 1 ,178)=4.00, p_<0.05. This univariate main effect of personality attractiveness, with the "nice" Mr. Brown receiving r e l i a b l y more pledged donations from the subjects (M=25.41 cents) than the "mean" Mr. Brown (M=19.64 cents), can be attributed to the "nice" Mr. Brown being perceived as more personally a t t r a c t i v e than the "mean" Mr. Brown. To determine the proportion of variance accounted for by personality attractiveness of the recipient in subjects' pledge to donate earnings, the omega-square s t a t i s t i c (Hays, 1981) was computed. The result was 0.02. This means that personality attractiveness of the potential recipient accounted for only two percent of the variance in the subjects' pledge to donate earnings. This suggests that although personality attractiveness was found to be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e variable that influenced subjects' pledge to donate earnings, the actual amount of influence, as indexed by the omega-square s t a t i s t i c , i s quite small. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s suggests that although a recipient described as having an a t t r a c t i v e personality received s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l y more pledged donations from the subjects than a recipient described as having an unattractive personality, personality attractiveness i t s e l f , at least as 92 manipulated in the present study, can predict only a small percentage of the variance in the donations of earnings pledged by children. Other related s t a t i s t i c s for the effects of personality attractiveness can be seen in Table 10 and Appendix K. Recipient Deservingness The hypothesis concerning the effects of recipient deservingness was not supported as no r e l i a b l e multivariate or univariate main or interaction effects involving recipient deservingness were observed. S t a t i s t i c s related to the deservingness treatment can be seen in Table 10 and Appendix K. Gender As no multivariate main or interaction e f f e c t s involving gender were observed, an examination of the univariate effects was undertaken. This examination revealed a r e l i a b l e univariate main effect of gender on subjects' pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , F( 1 , 178) = 3.86, p_<0.05. This main effect of gender can be attributed to g i r l s being more generous than boys: g i r l s pledging to contribute more stories than boys (M=2.20 vs. M=1.62). To determine the proportion Of variance accounted for by gender of the subjects in their pledge to contribute stories, the omega-square s t a t i s t i c was computed. The result is 0.01. This means that gender of the subjects accounted for only one percent of the variance in their pledge to contribute s t o r i e s . This suggests that although gender was found to be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e variable that influenced subjects' pledge 9 3 to contribute s t o r i e s , the actual amount of influence, as indexed by the omega-square s t a t i s t i c , is quite small. In other words, although g i r l s were found . to pledge to contribute r e l i a b l y more st o r i e s than boys, gender i t s e l f can only predict a small percentage of the variance in the number of stories pledged by children. Other related s t a t i s t i c s can be seen in Table 10 and Appendix K. Interaction Effects As is clear from the above discussions, no multivariate or univariate interaction effects involving any of the four independent variables were observed. The related s t a t i s t i c s can be seen in Appendix K. CORRELATIONS AMONG OUTCOME MEASURES To determine the extent of c o r r e l a t i o n among the three outcome (dependent) measures in the study, pledged s t o r i e s , pledged donations, and actual donations, Pearson product-moment corr e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed. The results showed that these three measures, after adjusting for the effects of covariate 3 (How much do you enjoy writing s t o r i e s ? ) , which was included in the 4-way MANCOVA analysis, correlated p o s i t i v e l y with one another. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the correlations between pledged stories and pledged donations, between pledged stories and actual donations, and between pledged donations and actual donations are r_'s=0.33, 0 . 3 4 , and 0 . 8 6 , respectively, p _ ' s < 0 . 0 l . (The error c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for these three sets of correlations are r ' s = 0 . 3 5 , 0 . 3 5 , and 0 . 8 6 , respectively, p _ ' s < 0 . 0 l ) . 94 These positive correlations, which are s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, suggest that these three dependent measures tend to share the same common variance - helping behaviors. The correlations between pledged stories and pledged donations (r=0.33), and between pledged stories and actual donations (r=0.34), in p a r t i c u l a r , are consistent with the finding of Rushton (1976). In his attempt to determine the generality of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children, Rushton found that the correlation among di f f e r e n t measures of a l t r u i s t i c behavior in children tended to have a magnitude of about 0.30. A p r i n c i p a l component analysis of the three dependent measures was undertaken and the results are shown in Table 11. Insert Table 11 about here As can be seen from the data in Table 11, the f i r s t component appears to primarily r e f l e c t monetary donations r e l a t i v e to story contributions, which does not involve any monetary cost to the contributor. This f i r s t component accounted for about 93 percent of the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n . This means that the t o t a l variance in the dependent measures can be largely accounted for by subjects' pledge to donate earnings and their actual donations. The second component seems to r e f l e c t the d i s t i n c t i o n between subjects' pledge to donate earnings and their actual donations of earnings. The above findings thus suggest that the three dependent measures used in the present study may be considered to be d i s t i n c t from one another, and to tap three d i f f e r e n t aspects of helping behavior, as intended. 96 CHAPTER V Discussion and Conclusions INDUCTION Manipulation Checks for Induction Treatment Results from the multidimensional contingency table (MCT) analyses reported in Chapter IV indicate that subjects' responses to Question 1 (Should we be helpful to the elderly who need our help?) and Question 2 (Should we be generous to the elderly who need our help?) in the treatment story were not r e l i a b l y influenced by any of the variables being examined in the present study, including gender of the subjects. To determine the extent of dependence/independence between subjects' responses to these two questions before and after the treatment, their responses to Question 1 in the treatment story were "correlated" with their responses to Question 5 on the pre-experimental covariate question sheet {Should we be helpful to the el d e r l y (70 years or older) who need our help?}. The same was done for Question 2 in the story and Question 7 on the pre-experimental covariate question sheet {Should we be generous to the elderly (70 years or older) who need our help?}. The li k e l i h o o d r a t i o chi-squares for these two measures of dependence/independence are 75.11 and 44.71, respectively, d_f's=9, p_'s<0.00l. This indicates that there was great consistency among the subjects in their responses to the same questions before and after the treatment. The Cramer's V's (ranging from 0 to 1) for the above two sets of "correlations" were observed to be 0.70 and 0.34, respectively, which represent a high and a moderately high 97 degree of consistency between subjects' responses to the two sets of "pre" and "post" measures. Also, the above finding suggests that, by the age of about 11, children have already acquired the a b i l i t y to express s o c i a l value of helping the elderly, and they indicate t h i s value in response to questions in an anonymous sit u a t i o n . Also, in terms of subjects' responses to Questions 1 and 2 in the treatment story (see Table 1 ) , which tapped children's "attitude" toward helping the eld e r l y in need, i t seems clear that children are quite a l t r u i s t i c toward elderly people, at least verbally. This may be one reason why the lack of a r e l i a b l e induction effect in th i s study. As a speculation, this a l t r u i s t i c attitude may have resulted from their experiences with the mass media that encourage respect and consideration for the elderly (e.g., courtesy seats on the bus). Also, expression of helpfulness and being helpful, especially to the elderly, i s something that is s o c i a l l y valued generally. Children may have acquired t h i s value through a variety of experiences by th i s age. This may have accounted for the induction, as compared to the non-induction, treatment f a i l i n g to produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e effects either in their response to these two questions or to the outcome measures ( i . e . , pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , to donate earnings, and actual donations). The subjects' indication that one should be helpful and generous to the elderly who need help i s probably only one aspect of the larger body of helping responses that they have 98 already acquired by thi s age. Thus, i t is l i k e l y that they probably have also learned that one should help the poor, the sick, the handicapped, etc. When faced with the question whether these "stigmatized others" should be helped, one might expect their responses to be uniformly positive because of the influence of s o c i a l values and s o c i a l pressures. Reviews of research (e.g., McTavish, 1971; Bennett & Eckman, 1973; Bennett, 1976) consistently showed that widespread prejudice against the edlerly existed among the young. Their prejudice includes the presumption that the old have serious problems of i n s u f f i c i e n t money, poor health, loneliness, inadequate medical care, etc. One might speculate that the a l t r u i s t i c responses of subjects in the present study grew out of this "prejudiced" notion of the el d e r l y . Wheth.er th i s i s true can be determined perhaps by comparing their responses made here with those made in a situation in which the recipient i s a younger adult or a peer of t h e i r s . Also, one might note that the subjects in the study a l l attended Roman Catholic schools and most, i f not a l l , of them had a Catholic background. Given the t r a d i t i o n a l teachings of the Catholic Church on love and charity, these values may be more salient for them than for other children of their age who do not have similar backgrounds and do not attend r e l i g i o u s schools. Perhaps further research might be undertaken to ascertain possible differences in a l t r u i s t i c responses between children who attend church-sponsored schools and those who attend public schools. 99 E f f e c t s of Induction The lack of a main effect of induction is contrary to expectations. Given that the induction statements in the present study incorporated the features of those that have been used successfuly in previous studies (e.g., Midlarsky & Bryan, 1972; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979), one would not conclude here that induction i s not e f f e c t i v e in promoting children's helping behavior. Because in previous studies (Midlarsky & Bryan, 1972; Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker, 1979), the recipients associated with the induction were needy children while the recipient in the present study was an elderly needy person, i t might be that the age of the recipient moderated the effects of induction. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y seems to exist that the stimulus object (i.e.., the elderly person) in the study might have been so s a l i e n t , perhaps because of his old age and hence the imagined dependency conditions, that i t operated to boost the responses of subjects in the non-induction (control) condition beyond what i t might otherwise have been. In other words, the subjects in the non-induction condition might have provided their own "induction". Evidence supporting this view came from subjects who were queried at the end of the experiment. Many subjects indicated that they f e l t sorry for Mr. Brown because he was old and without a refrigerator and they therefore pledged and donated to help him. This would suggest that subjects in the non-induction condition might have perceived Mr. Brown in a way similar to those in the induction condition because of his old age. As a re s u l t , they decided to help him more than they otherwise would 100 have. This would then e f f e c t i v e l y served to reduce the difference that might otherwise would have occurred between subjects in the two induction conditions. Given t h i s possible explanation for the absence of a r e l i a b l e main ef f e c t of induction, the implication appears to be that factors other than contents of induction must be taken into consideration when the e f f e c t s of induction are being evaluated. These factors seem to include, at least, the nature of the stimulus object i t s e l f . If the stimulus object i s not chosen from the proper perspective of the subjects, i t runs the risk of confounding any effects that induction might otherwise produce. This, in a way, seems to echo the view of Buckley, Siegel, and Ness (1979). These researchers suggested that subjects' a l t r u i s t i c response may be a function of the age of the potential r e c i p i e n t . They suggested that children may assume "adults" to be competent and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . As a r e s u l t , they may not be as l i k e l y to help or share with them as they would with another c h i l d . In the present study, on the other hand, the subjects in the non-induction (control) condition may well have focused on the old age (and therefore the imagined dependent conditions) of Mr. Brown (who was pictured and described to the subjects as a senior c i t i z e n ) and they reacted favorably towards him. The above account i s corroborated by subjects' favorable responses to the two questions (manipulation check Questions 1 and 2) asking whether one should be helpful and generous to the elderly who need help, as discussed e a r l i e r . Granted that the p o s s i b i l i t i e s discussed above exist, 101 further studies using induction with emphases similar to those of this study and children or younger adults as potential recipients may be conducted. This w i l l offer opportunities to further determine the ef f e c t s of induction with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features emphasized in t h i s study. It should be noted that the lack of an induction effect i s , of course, subject to more than one interpretations. In terms,of subjects' responses to Questions 1 and 2 in the treatment story (see Table 1), which tapped children's "attitude" toward helping the elderly in need, i t was suggested in e a r l i e r discussion that children were already quite a l t r u i s t i c toward the elderly, at least verbally. Additional evidence supporting t h i s view came from subjects' responses to pre-experimental (covariate) question 5 {Should we be helpful to the el d e r l y (70 years or older) who need our help?} and question 7 {Should we be generous to the elderly (70 years or older) who need our help?}. Analysis of these responses for the 195 subjects show that for question 5, 170 subjects chose "ALWAYS", 25 chose "SOMETIMES" and none chose "RARELY")@ OR "never"; AND FOR QUESTION 7, 159 CHOSE "always", 35 CHOSE "sometimes", AND ONLY ONE CHOSE "rarely". Given t h i s pattern of responses and the fact that these pre-experimental (covariate) questions were administered anonymously by a stranger t o t a l l y unknown to the subjects, i t appears that the subjects tended to be already a l t r u i s t i c , at least verbally, prior to the experimental treatment. The above i s , of course, one interpretation for the lack of an induction e f f e c t . Other interpretations are possible. For 102 example, another interpretation for the lack of an induction effect would be that the dependent measures were not sensitive enough to the induction treatment. An examination of the unadjusted grand means and averaged standard deviations shows that for pledged s t o r i e s , pledged donations, and actual donations, the unadjusted grand means and averaged standard deviations are, respectively, 1.93, 1.42; 22.51, 18.66; and 21.21, 18.52. These data suggest that neither " c e i l i n g " nor " f l o o r " effect could be held responsible for the lack of an induction e f f e c t . This, therefore, suggests that i t i s the i n s e n s i t i v i t y of the measurement units that might have masked the effects of induction. Another interpretation would be that induction in the form of a reading passage i s not an e f f e c t i v e way to induce altruism towards elderly people in children. In other words, reading a passage alone may not be s u f f i c i e n t to induce generosity or helping behaviors toward elderly people simply because the subjects may not be persuaded by the content of the written passage. (It should be noted here that reading comprehension was not a problem as i t was not found to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor (covariate) influencing subjects' responses to any of the outcome, i . e . , dependent, measures.) An additional interpretation for the lack of an induction effect would be that generosity and helpfulness towards elderly people simply cannot be induced among children regardless of the methods used. Of these four interpretations, the f i r s t two appear to be more l i k e l y than the last two. This i s so because there are no 1 03 empirical bases for judging the v a l i d i t y of the last two interpretations, although they may well prove to be v a l i d by further research. PERSONALITY ATTRACTIVENESS Manipulation Checks for Personality Attractiveness Treatment The interaction between subjects' responses to Question 3 (Do you think children w i l l l i k e Mr. Brown?) and personality attractiveness and between subjects' responses to Question 4 (Do you think you w i l l l i k e someone as nice/mean as Mr. Brown?) and personality attractiveness, as indicated in Table 3, are consistent with expectations. They showed that the treatment in the study was functioning as intended. Also, they indicated that l i k i n g was shown toward a "nice" person and d i s l i k i n g was shown toward a "mean" person. This i s , therefore, evidence to indicate that persons with an a t t r a c t i v e personality are li k e d and persons with an unattractive personality are d i s l i k e d by children, at least within the context of the present study. Ef f e c t s of Personality Attractiveness The finding that the "nice" Mr. Brown received more pledged donations than the "mean" Mr. Brown i s consistent with expectations. It also corroborates the findings of Baron (1971), Kriss et a l . (1974), and Regan (1971), who used adult subjects and found that "nice" persons were "helped" more. The finding from the present study also corroborates those of Masters (1971), and Staub and Sherk (1970), who found children to be more helpful toward those who were " l i k e d " , though l i k i n g was not manipulated there d i r e c t l y . The fact that a main effect of personality attractiveness 1 04 was found on pledged donations but not on pledged stories or actual donations needs to be reconciled, however. This inconsistency may have been a result of the "cost" of writing s t o r i e s . From the subjects' point of view, writing stories may involve a greater degree of personal commitment than simply pledging and making donations of money earned in the experiment. Writing stories involves more time and e f f o r t and i t is perhaps not a p a r t i c u l a r l y enjoyable a c t i v i t y for the subjects given their experience with writing assignments. Granted this to be plausible, i t might be that subjects in the high attractiveness condition wanted to be more helpful but were held back in pledging stories because of t h i s "cost" consideration. If t h i s i s true, then one might expect the difference in the number of stories pledged by the two groups of subjects to diminish, perhaps to the point of no difference. This inconsistency between subjects' pledge to donate earnings and to contribute stories ( i . e . , main effect of personality attractiveness on pledged donations but not on pledged stories) may perhaps be i l l u s t r a t e d with the following example: One would very much l i k e to treat a v i s i t i n g friend to a nice dinner and decides to dine at a restaurant instead of cooking at home to avoid the troubles involved in cooking. The inconsistency between subjects' pledged donations and their actual donations, however, is not immediately understood. It might have resulted from children's carelessness, a change of mind, etc. This inconsistency, however, i s not unlike those found among adults in everyday si t u a t i o n in which actual donations are almost always exceeded by pledged donations.. 1 05 The finding that the "nice" Mr. Brown received more pledged donations than the "mean" Mr. Brown is supportive of the approach to teacher-student, more generally, a d u l t - c h i l d , relationships advocated by Ginott (1965, 1969, 1972). In dealing with the behavioral problems presented by children, Ginott (e.g., 1972) places the emphasis on attacking the event or problem created by children while demonstrating understanding and acceptance of them. Attacks on children's personality and character are discouraged. This approach to ad u l t - c h i l d d i s c i p l i n a r y encounter apparently helps to present a much more acceptable (attractive) image of the adult to the c h i l d and is hence more l i k e l y to e l i c i t cooperative behavior from him. It should be noted that although personality attractiveness acco.unted for a rather small proportion of variance (as indexed by the omega-square s t a t i s t i c ) in children's pledge to donate, as described in Chapter IV, i t s implications for education should s t i l l be discussed. F i r s t of a l l , recipient personality attractiveness i s more important than induction or recipient deservingness, at least within the context of the present study, in influencing children's helping behavior," as indicated by their pledge to donate earnings. One implication here seems to be that the helping behavior of grade-five and grade-six children may be more e a s i l y influenced by r e l a t i v e l y concrete, or "surface", and af f e c t i v e variables (such as personality attractiveness) than by abstract and cognitive variables (such as recipient deservingness). This suggests that to encourage children's helping behavior, i t might be important to emphasize the 106 desirable personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential r e c i p i e n t . These desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which may be c r u c i a l for interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n , should be ea s i l y perceived by children. A second.implication of th i s finding i s that since children of t h i s age l e v e l tend to focus on the r e l a t i v e l y concrete and af f e c t i v e variables in their helping behavior, i t is necessary to discuss with them the more abstract and cognitive variables that e l i c i t and j u s t i f y helping behaviors. These abstract variables include, for example, the consideration of equality and j u s t i c e . A further implication i s that teachers who are "nice" may be more readily accepted by children ( i . e . , they are more l i k e l y to obtain "cooperation" from them) than teachers who are "mean". This would suggest that children may be more open to the influence of "nice" than "mean" teachers. That personality attractiveness influences helping behavior and/or l i k i n g i s not unique to children. It seems to apply in the world of adults as well. A salesman, or a doctor, who appears to be "nice" ( f r i e n d l y , sympathetic, etc.) is l i k e l y to att r a c t more c l i e n t s than one who i s not so perceived. And a fo o t b a l l coach who is we l l - l i k e d by his players i s l i k e l y to inv i t e more "cooperation" from them in the form of greater genuine motivation to play well in a game. Social psychologists (e.g., Wrightsman, 1977) have indicated that the a b i l i t y to s a t i s f y another person's needs and a pleasant or agreeable ( i . e . , nice) personality are important factors influencing interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n , or l i k i n g . This 1 07 conclusion, however, was largely, i f not exclusively, derived from studies on adults. Findings from the present study indicate that interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n between children and adults seems to follow a pattern p a r a l l e l i n g that of adults. They seem to be more attracted to ( i . e . , displaying more l i k i n g toward) adults who are pleasant, agreeable, understanding and accepting than to adults who lack these q u a l i t i e s . One can often notice from casual observatons and interactions with children that they have a tendency to label adults on the basis of their perception of adults' behavior. Adults who appear to be understanding and accepting are more l i k e l y to be labeled "nice" by children than those who do not appear to be understanding and accepting. The findings from this study would suggest that adults who are labeled "nice" by children also may be l i k e d by them, and are more - l i k e l y to receive help from them than adults who are l a b e l l e d "mean". If physical attractiveness can be conceptualized in terms of producing l i k i n g , then the finding of the present study also corroborates the finding of Gross, Wallston, and P i l i a v i n (1975). These researchers showed that adults helped a t t r a c t i v e recipients more than unattractive r e c i p i e n t s . Few, i f any, studies have been conducted to determine the effects of teacher influence on children's helping behavior. This may r e f l e c t the b e l i e f of the general public that teachers are primarily responsible for the i n t e l l e c t u a l , rather than moral, development of the c h i l d . Considering the amount of time students spend with their teachers and the esteem in which teachers are held, one can expect that teachers may serve as an 108 important source of influence on children's moral development generally and a l t r u i s t i c behavior in p a r t i c u l a r . As previously indicated, the nurturance (understanding and acceptance, f r i e n d l i n e s s , sympathy, etc.) of adults, p a r t i c u l a r l y parents, has been found to contribute to the development of helping behavior in children. While most, i f not a l l , of the studies on the e f f e c t s of nurturance on children's helping behavior focused on parental nurturance, i t seems l i k e l y that nurturance of teachers in the form of an a t t r a c t i v e personality may also influence children's moral development and behavior. Researchers (see, e.g., Staub, 1978 for a review) have found that self-concern i n h i b i t s helping behavior. Conceivably, the classroom is a place where evaluations, and therefore s e l f -concern, occur very frequently. It seems plausible that a teacher's "nurturance" could help a l l e v i a t e children's s e l f -concern in the classroom and hence enable them to become more open to the needs of others. The notion of self-concern also seems to apply in the context of Ginott's notion of a d u l t - c h i l d relationships (Ginott, 1965, 1969, 1972). By showing understanding and acceptance ( i . e . , being nurturant) of the c h i l d , the teacher frees the c h i l d from concern about being rejected. This could conceivably help the c h i l d become more open to the needs of others and make i t more l i k e l y for him to exhibit cooperative and helping behaviors. In addition, in displaying an a t t r a c t i v e personality, the teacher performs an important educational function by setting a 109 good model for children to emulate. RECIPIENT DESERVINGNESS Manipulation Checks for Recipient Deservingness Treatment The implication of the finding that subject's responses to manipulation check Question 5 (How did Mr. Brown get his refrigerator?) were r e l i a b l y influenced by the deservingness treatment, as shown in Table 5, is very c l e a r . It indicates that a l l but seven of the subjects in the study were aware as to how Mr. Brown obtained his r e f r i g e r a t o r . The subjects' response to manipulation check Question 6 (Who damaged the refrigerator?) as a function of deservingness (see Table 5), though s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e at the 0.001 l e v e l , does not show "numerically" the same clear-cut pattern as in their response to Question 5. This means that there is a r e l a t i v e l y high proportion of subjects (14/98 in the high and 23/97 in the low deservingness condition) who responded incorrectly as to who damaged the r e f r i g e r a t o r . The reason for th i s high proportion of incorrect responses is not immediately c l e a r . Perhaps i t is that while both Questions 5 and 6 are factual, Question 6 is more open to subjective judgment and interpretation than is Question 5. It i s l i k e l y that, in responding to Question 6, some subjects might have attributed the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for having damaged the refrigerator on a basis d i f f e r e n t from what was intended in the story. They might have, for example, f e l t sympathetic towards Mr. Brown (perhaps because of his old age) and attributed the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for having damaged the refrigerator to the e l e c t r i c i a n . This may then result in the observed "discrepant" 110 pattern of response. The subjects' responses to manipulation check Question 7 are interesting on five counts. F i r s t , their responses were influenced by the deservingness treatment in the present study in accordance with expectations. As can be seen from Table 6, the proportion of subjects who f e l t that Mr. Brown deserved another re f r i g e r a t o r was r e l i a b l y greater when he was described as deserving than when he was described as undeserving (68/98 vs. 20/97). The second interesting point about the subjects' responses to Question 7 i s that their responses were also r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness of the recipient. As can be seen from Table 6, the proportion of subjects who f e l t that Mr. Brown deserved another refrigerator was r e l i a b l y greater when he was described as "a t t r a c t i v e " than when he was described as "unattractive" (61/97 vs. 27/98). The t h i r d interesting point i s that their responses to Question 7 were influenced j o i n t l y by the deservingness as well as the personality attractiveness of the recipient. As can be seen from Table 6, the proportion of subjects who f e l t that Mr. Brown deserved another refrigerator ( i . e . , choosing the "YES" response) decreased steadily from when he was described as "deserving and a t t r a c t i v e " (45/48) to "deserving but unattractive" (23/50), to "undeserving but a t t r a c t i v e " (16/49), and f i n a l l y , to "undeserving and unattractive" (4/48). The above pattern of "YES" responses to Question 7 complements well the pattern of "NO" responses given by the subjects. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true when one considers the 111 proportion of subjects who f e l t that Mr. Brown did not deserve another refrigerator under the four combinations of deservingness and personality attractiveness. The proportion of "NO" responses rose from when he was described as "deserving and a t t r a c t i v e " (0/48) to when he was described as "undeserving and unattractive" (24/48). The fourth interesting point centers around the d i s t r i b u t i o n of "NOT SURE" responses across the four desevingness x personality attractiveness treatment conditions. As can be seen from Table 6, the proportion of "NOT SURE" responses i s smallest (3/48) when Mr. Brown was described as both "deserving and a t t r a c t i v e . " The proportion of "NOT SURE" responses increased to 25/50 when he was described as "deserving but unattractive", to 28/49 when he was described as "undeserving but a t t r a c t i v e " , and f i n a l l y reverted to 20/48 when he was described as "undeserving and unattractive". This pattern of "NOT SURE" responses seems further to attest to the interacting effects of deservingness and personality attractiveness on subjects' response to the question of deservingness. The above finding therefore suggests that children's perception of the deservingness of a recipient i s influenced by the personality attractiveness of that recipient, at least as operationalized in this study. Thus, even when two persons are equally deserving (or non-deserving), the person with an at t r a c t i v e personality tends to be perceived more favorably from the perspective of deservingness by the subjects than a person with an unattractive personality. 1 12 Because t h i s interpretation i s based on what may be termed " c o r r e l a t i o n a l " analysis, one might wish to argue from the reverse d i r e c t i o n that children's perception of the "attractiveness" of a recipient i s influenced by his/her deservingness of help. That i s , even when two persons are equally " a t t r a c t i v e " (or "unattractive"), the person who is more deserving tends to be perceived more favorably from the perspective of personality attractiveness than a person who i s not deserving. However, given that subjects' responses to manipulation check Questions 3 and 4 (which were designed to measure the ef f e c t s of personality attractiveness) were not r e l i a b l y influenced by the deservingness treatment while their responses to manipulation check Question 7 (which was designed to measure the effects of deservingness) were r e l i a b l y influenced by the personality attractiveness treatment, the interpretation that personality attractiveness influenced the perception of deservingness appears more l i k e l y . Given t h i s interpretation, one speculation to be drawn seems to be that personality attractiveness may influence children's perception of other aspects of r e a l i t y . Thus, one might speculate that "wrong" ideas taught by a "nice" teacher may be more readily accepted as "right" by children than the same ideas taught by a "mean" teacher. Perhaps future research may be undertaken to test t h i s conjecture. Also, i f th i s deservingness and personality attractiveness "interaction" effect can be generalized to school situations, then one implication here seems to be that a "nice" teacher may be seen as deserving of children's cooperative/helping behaviors 1 1 3 and a "mean" teacher may be seen as undeserving of children's cooperative/helping behaviors. Future research'can perhaps test t h i s hypothesis more d i r e c t l y in the classroom setting by means of more rigorous behavioral measures. In the meantime, these findings seem to suggest that i t might be worthwhile for teachers to develop their capacity for understanding and acceptance of children ( i . e . , personality attractiveness). The l a s t interesting point about subjects' responses to manipulation check Question 7 is that there was a r e l a t i v e l y large proportion (76/195) of "NOT SURE" responses, as can be seen, for example, from Table 6. The reason for this large number of "NOT SURE" responses is not clear. It might r e f l e c t the "interaction" e f f e c t s between the deservingness and personality attractiveness treatments, or the subjects' "sympathetic" perception of Mr. Brown perhaps because of his old age, or both. With regard to manipulation check Question 7, then, the ove r a l l picture is that subjects' response to the question of deservingness was influenced by the deservingness as well as the personality attractiveness treatments. The finding that subjects' responses to manipulation check Question 7 were j o i n t l y influenced by the deservingness and personality attractiveness treatments (see Table 6) requires further discussion. This interaction indicates that regardless of whether Mr. Brown was described as deserving or undeserving, the " a t t r a c t i v e " Mr. Brown was perceived as more deserving than the "unattractive" Mr. Brown. This seems to suggest that there exists a deservingness component of personality attractiveness. 1 1 4 Indeed, given the data in Table 6, i t might even be argued that for the subjects, "attractiveness" i s analogous to deservingness such that i f a person i s " a t t r a c t i v e " , he is deserving, and i f he is "unattractive", he i s undeserving. On the basis of this argument, i t can be further argued that the "attractiveness" treatment in the present study i s not as pure an experimental treatment as deservingness, and future research, therefore, should be conducted to determine whether personality attractiveness can exist independent of deservingness ( i . e . , whether children can perceive a person as " a t t r a c t i v e " without being deserving or vice versa). Also, as discussed e a r l i e r , personality attractiveness was found to have a r e l i a b l e effect on the outcome measure pledged donations. But given the finding that subjects' responses to manipulation check Question 7 were j o i n t l y influenced by the deservingness and personality attractiveness treatments, as the data in Table 6 indicate, one might question whether th i s effect is due to personality attractiveness per se or the deservingness component that i s considered a part of personality attractiveness. In other words, the interaction among subjects' responses to Question 7 and personality attractiveness and deservingness makes the interpretation of the effects of personality attractiveness on the outcome measure pledged donations somewhat ambiguous. The reason here seems to be that personality attractiveness in the present study may then be interpreted as one kind of deservingness that i s d i s t i n c t from the deservingness manipulated in the study. This kind of deservingness results from an a t t r a c t i v e personality such that a 115 person with an a t t r a c t i v e personality is automatically bestowed with deservingness and a person with an unattractive personality is deprived of deservingness. Given t h i s interpretation, the question, again, seems to be whether personality attractiveness can be isolated from deservingness for children. Future research should perhaps examine th i s problem. The discussion presented above also suggests that f i f t h and sixth grade children s t i l l have d i f f i c u l t y distinguishing personality attractiveness from deservingness. They seem to confuse personality attractiveness with deservingnes in such a way that being " a t t r a c t i v e " i s deserving and being "unattractive" i s undeserving. This i s less l i k e l y the case for adults as they can see more c l e a r l y the d i s t i n c t i o n between personality attractiveness and deservingness such'that one can be " a t t r a c t i v e " without being deserving or vice versa. The question "At what age do children begin to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between deservingness and personality attractiveness?" therefore seems to be another question worthy of research. Effects of Recipient Deservingness The lack of a main eff e c t of deservingness on the three outcome measures is contrary to expectations. This i s especially surprising in view of subjects' responses to the three manipulation check questions embedded in the story: Question 5 (How did Mr. Brown get his r e f r i g e r a t o r ? ) , Question 6 (Who damaged the r e f r i g e r a t o r ? ) , and Question 7 (Does Mr. Brown deserve another r e f r i g e r a t o r ? ) . Subjects' responses to these three questions indicated that they had a notion of 1 16 deservingness, as discussed previously. Also, a notion of deservingness in children was demonstrated in a number of studies conducted by M i l l e r and his colleagues (e.g., M i l l e r & Smith, 1977; M i l l e r & McCann, 1979; Lerner, M i l l e r , & Holmes, 1976). The discrepancy between subjects' responses to these three "deservingness" manipulation check questions (process measures) and to the three outcome measures i s therefore interesting. The reason for this discrepancy challenges explanation. It is possible that while subjects f e l t that the "undeserving" Mr. Brown did not deserve help (as indicated by their responses to the three "deservingness" manipulation check questions in the story), they decided to respond to the helping appeal (the outcome measures in the form of pledge to donate earnings, actual donations, and pledge to contribute stories) from a larger context of deservingness than was anticipated in this study. S p e c i f i c a l l y , as discussed e a r l i e r , being old l i k e Mr. Brown in the picture they saw might have presented an image that indicates dependency (e.g., loneliness, poor health, cannot take care of oneself) and in v i t e s sympathy. It i s plausible that subjects took this notion of dependency into account while making their pledges to donate earnings or to contribute s t o r i e s . This suggests that they might be very sympathetic toward senior c i t i z e n s and, in the case of the "undeserving" Mr. Brown, they might have f e l t that his "undeservingness" should have been excused because of his old age. Results from informal interviews with subjects at the end of the experiment supported this view. As already mentioned in 1 1 7 e a r l i e r discussions, some.subjects indicated that they pledged and donated because they f e l t Mr. Brown was old and without a refrigerator and therefore would l i k e to help him. Others indicated that they were aware that Mr. Brown was "mean and undeserving" but would l i k e to help him anyway just because he was old. In other words, some subjects were responding to the helping appeal from a larger context of deservingness than was anticipated in thi s study. To determine the eff e c t s of recipient deservingness, therefore, the use of potential recipients of younger age (e.g., college students) might be necessary. One implication to be drawn from this discrepancy between subjects' responses to the process measures (the three "deservingness" manipulation check questions) and their responses to the outcome measures (pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , to donate earnings, and actual donations) is that there might be a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between "attitude" and "behavior" in children. Social psychologists (e.g., Freedman, Sears, & Carlsmith, 1978; Middlebrook, 1980) agree that attitude has a behavioral component, and may serve to guide a person toward certain behavior (Middlebrook, 1980). However, since inconsistency i s often found between attitude and behavior among adults (see, e.g., a review by Wicker, 1969), i t is possible that such inconsistencies may also exist among children perhaps because of their less developed cognitive structures. In the context of the present study, the inconsistency between subjects' attitude (responses to the process measures) and behavior (responses to the outcome measures) might have occurred because of their 1 18 possible "unique" conception of deservingness of the elderly recipient in thi s study. As noted e a r l i e r , subjects might have responded to the outcome measures (pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , to donate earnings, and actual donations) from a larger context of deservingness than when they were responding to the process measures (the three manipulation check questions) assessing their "attitude" toward deservingness. This seems to suggest that there may not be a direct correspondence between behaviors supposedly r e f l e c t i n g an underlying attitude and the behavioral component (and whatever guiding force that i t might have) of that attitude. In other words, because of "intervening variables", behavior may not necessarily r e f l e c t children's true attitude and that attitude may not necessarily dispose children to behave in a manner consistent with that att i t u d e . Perhaps further research can be undertaken to determine the exact conditions under which this hypothesis is true for children. As discussed e a r l i e r , the lack of a recipient deservingness effect may be due to subjects' responding to the helping appeal from a larger context of deservingness than was anticipated in this study. This, of course, i s just one interpretation. Other interpretations are possible. For exa'mple, one interpretation would be that the measurement units used in the present study are not appropriate, as discussed e a r l i e r . Another interpretation would be that describing the deservingness of an elderly person in the form of a reading passage i s not an ef f e c t i v e way for manipulating this variable ( i . e . , deservingness of an elderly person), at least when the dependent measures are pledges to contribute s t o r i e s , to donate 119 earnings, and actual donations of earnings. In other words, in terms of the three dependent measures just described, subjects are not able to determine the deservingness of an el d e r l y person simply by reading a passage. A further interpretation would be that regardless of the methods used, one simply cannot manipulate the deservingness of an elderly person. Of these four interpretations, the f i r s t two appear to be more l i k e l y than the l a s t two because there are no empirical bases for judging the v a l i d i t y of the l a t t e r , although they might prove to be v a l i d by further research. EFFECTS OF GENDER As may be recalled from the MCT analyses discussed e a r l i e r , gender was not found, to have any r e l i a b l e influence on subjects' responses to the seven manipulation check questions embedded in the story. However, a main effect of gender on subjects' pledge to contribute stories was found. The finding that g i r l s were more generous than boys in their pledge to contribute stories is consistent with sex differences (when they were found) in helping behavior reported in the l i t e r a t u r e (see, e.g., Bryan, 1975; and Rushton, 1976 for a review). That the main effect of gender occurred for pledged stories but not for pledged donations i s interesting. An examination of the unadjusted mean scores for pledged donations showed that g i r l s did pledge more than boys (M=25.72 cents vs. M=18.85 cents). This difference, however, i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e only at the seven percent l e v e l of confidence. The mean scores for 120 these two outcome measures thus indicate that there is a consistent trend for g i r l s to be more generous than boys in th i s study, p a r t i c u l a r l y in a measure that demands more personal commitment in the form of time and e f f o r t . As discussed e a r l i e r , writing stories involves more commitment than simply donating earnings won in the experiment. The finding here thus suggests that g i r l s may be more w i l l i n g than boys to commit themselves in endeavors involving sustained e f f o r t . This speculation seems consistent with the finding that sex differences in favor of g i r l s occurred in yet another dimension - that of s t a b i l i t y . White (1972) found that donating behavior of g i r l s tend to be more stable over time than that of boys. Sex differences in favor of g i r l s once again have been found in a recent study (Weissbrod, 1980) on the effects of adult nurturance and instructions on children's donating behavior. The subjects in the study were second and f i f t h grade children and the dependent measure was the sharing of subjects' winnings from a game with a younger, "less fortunate" c h i l d . The results show that sex of the subjects and experimenter nurturance and instructions a l l exerted r e l i a b l e influence on subjects' donating behavior. In p a r t i c u l a r , g i r l s were found to donate r e l i a b l y more winnings than boys. The reasons why g i r l s tend to be more generous than boys (when a difference i s found) are s t i l l not as clear as they might be. In a study by Yarrow, Scott, and Waxier (1973), i t was found that boys seeking help were more l i k e l y than g i r l s to 121 receive negative or rejecting responses from either nurturant or non-nurturant adults. As Bryan (1975) noted, t h i s experience of interactions with more nurturant, and therefore more he l p f u l , adults for g i r l s , but less so for boys, probably helps them develop a greater tendency to be helpful and generous. Also, as Bryan (1975) noted, being helpful and nurturant may be more sex-appropriate for g i r l s than for boys. These considerations may make i t more "natural" for g i r l s than for boys to be more helpful and generous. The difference in generosity in favor of g i r l s may also be a result of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with parents of the same sex exhibited by children. For example, i t has been noted that g i r l s tend to identi f y with their mothers, who have been found to be more "internalized and humanistic" than are fathers, with whom boys tend to i d e n t i f y (Hoffman, 1975c). The findings from a recent study (Barnett, King, Howard, & Dino, 1980) on empathy in 4- to 6-year-old g i r l s seem to offer further support to t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n interpretation. Differences in helping behavior in favor of g i r l s may also result from parental child-rearing practices. It has been observed (e.g., Hoffman, 1970a, 1975c, 1979; Hoffman & S a l t z s t e i n , 1967; Zussman, 1978) that the combination of frequent use of maternal a f f e c t i o n , induction, and infrequent use of power-assertion tend to foster the development of "moral i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n " . This combination works especially well with g i r l s because mothers have been found to express more af f e c t i o n to g i r l s , use more induction and less power assertion with them (Hoffman, 1975c). Also, induction may have been more e f f e c t i v e 1 22 with g i r l s than boys because g i r l s tend to be more "empathic" than boys at an early age (Feshbach & Feshbach, 1969; Levine & Hoffman, 1976). These differences may make g i r l s more open to influences of induction and therefore show more empathic responses (Hoffman, 1963; Hoffman & Sa l t z s t e i n , 1967). The sex difference in generosity may also be a result of d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l pressure on the two sexes for achievement s t r i v i n g . It has been suggested (e.g., Hoffman 1975c, 1979) that there is more pressure for males than for females to develop "instrumental" character t r a i t s and s k i l l s needed for occupational success. This pressure for achievement and success may c o n f l i c t with the male's "humanistic moral concerns" for the welfare of others. In contrast to males, females t r a d i t i o n a l l y have been more l i k e l y to be encouraged to develop an "expressive" s k i l l - to be able to give and receive a f f e c t i o n , to be responsive to the needs of others - (Johnson, 1963). This encouragement that g i r l s receive may serve to equip them well to develop morally. The sex difference in generosity, with g i r l s being more generous than boys, raises one question: Should people accept th i s difference as i t i s or should e f f o r t s be made to help boys become more generous? If the answer i s the l a t t e r , one might ask what can be done to help improve the generosity of boys. One suggested answer to this question seems to be that emphasis on achievement in boys should be balanced with the emphasis on concern for the welfare of others. Children, for example, can be taught both by teachers and parents that i t is important not to maximize one's personal gain at the expense of 123 the well-being of others. E f f o r t s should be made to help boys realiz e and accept the notion that being helpful i s an important achievement in i t s own right and therefore should be valued for i t s own sake. A second suggestion is to focus more attention on promoting equitable c h i l d - r e a r i n g practices. It seems important that adults, p a r t i c u l a r l y parents and teachers, should treat both boys and g i r l s in an equally warm and nurturant manner, thereby offering both boys and g i r l s an equally helpful example (model) to i d e n t i f y with. Also, in dealing with boys, there probably should be an increase in the use of induction and affection rather than the use of power. It should be noted that the above discussion has been focused on the gender of the subjects as i t influenced helping behaviors. The p o s s i b i l i t y for the gender of the potential recipient to influence subjects' helping behaviors has not been explored here. Given that the recipient in the present study was an elderly male, i t would be worthwhile to see whether the gender differences observed in t h i s study can be replicated when the potential recipient i s an elderly female. Also, i t should be noted that although no sex difference was found in pledged donations and actual donations, an interesting observation concerning these two measures should be reported. The observation i s : f i v e of the 16 groups of subjects actually donated more than they pledged, and these fiv e groups of subjects were a l l boys. Further, four of these fiv e groups were in a treatment condition involving low deservingness. While the implications of this finding are not clear, the finding, 124 with 11 of the 16 groups pledging more than they donated, and the fiv e groups of subjects whose actual donations exceeded their pledges were a l l boys, i s interesting on two counts. F i r s t , i t is consistent with the everyday si t u a t i o n in which pledged donations almost always exceed actual donations. Second, i t raises the question as to why a l l those subjects who donated, more than they pledged were boys. This last question suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y that when i t comes to real actions in contrast to promises, boys might very well be more helpful than g i r l s . Perhaps, future research can be conducted to examine this speculation. INTERACTION EFFECTS The finding that none of the interactions predicted at the beginning of the study was confirmed is contrary to expectations. While the exact reasons for t h i s finding are not clear, one speculation for t h i s lack of interaction i s that i t might be a result of the "saliency" of the stimulus object in the study - the elderly Mr. Brown. As discussed e a r l i e r , subjects might have focused on his old age and, therefore, the imagined dependency conditions, thereby influencing their responses. This, of course, is a speculation. To further test the interactions predicted in t h i s study, i t appears that the use of a younger potential recipient (e.g., college student) might be the f i r s t necessary step. Also, the above speculation i s just one interpretation for the lack of an interaction e f f e c t . Other interpretations are possible. For example, the lack of interactions among the three experimental variables may be due to the s p e c i f i c manner in 125 which the experimental variables were operationalized. Also, i t may be that the predictions of interactions made at the outset of the study were simply wrong. In other words, there are simply no interactions among the three variables being examined. The v a l i d i t y of these interpretations can only be determined by further research. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Generally, the findings of th i s study can be summarized as follows. The process measures indicate that induction was not r e l i a b l y induced but the personality attractiveness and deservingness treatments were r e l i a b l y induced. Also, the process measures indicate that children l i k e people who have an at t r a c t i v e personality and d i s l i k e people who have an unattractive personality, at least as operationalized in this study. In addition, the process measures show that children tend to perceive deservingness in terms of personality attractiveness such that regardless of deservingness, a person with an a t t r a c t i v e personality i s perceived as more deserving than a person with an unattractive personality, as least as operationalized in this study. The outcome measures, on the other hand, indicate that both induction and recipient deservingness have no r e l i a b l e influence on subjects' pledge to contribute s t o r i e s , to donate earnings, or their actual donations. Personality attractiveness, however, was found to have a r e l i a b l e influence only on subjects' pledge to donate earnings. The gender of subjects was found to have a r e l i a b l e effect only on their pledge to contribute s t o r i e s . From an adult's point of view, more help should be given to 126 a potential recipient who i s perceived as deserving of help than to one who i s not so perceived. The present study, however, has not been able to provide confirming evidence for th i s notion with children. Perhaps, as Piaget (e.g., 1970) theorized, the thinking of adults i s more "formal" or " l o g i c a l " than that of children. Granted th i s to be true, i t would follow that.one might expect adults to offer help more as a function of r e l a t i v e l y abstract and cognitive considerations, such as deservingness of help, than more concrete and a f f e c t i v e considerations, such as personality attractiveness. The same, however, may not necessarily be true with children. Findings from the present study are consistent with t h i s thinking and also with Piaget's theory. They indicate that children's thinking i s di f f e r e n t from that of adults - they seem to focus more on concrete, or "surface", and a f f e c t i v e variables such as recipient personality attractiveness than abstract and cognitive ones such as recipient deservingness, as operationalized in th i s study. The implication here i s that to e l i c i t helping behaviors in children, i t appears that i t might be important to place emphasis on concrete, or surface, and a f f e c t i v e variables that children can perceive readily. To promote moral maturity, on the other hand, i t seems important that children be guided towards the use of progressively more "abstract" reasoning. Hetherington and Parke (1979) noted that the use of reasoning and explanation in d i s c i p l i n a r y encounters with children would enhance their s o c i a l development. According to these authors, "warm" parents who frequently use reasoning and 127 explanations with their children not only help them "in t e r n a l i z e s o c i a l rules and i d e n t i f y and discriminate situations in which a given behavior i s appropriate", but also may lead them to show "more concern with the well-being of others" (p.430). It might be noted here that reasoning, in contrast to the use of power and love-withdrawal, may also present a more a t t r a c t i v e image of the adult to the c h i l d . This assertion, together with the finding from the present study on personality attractiveness and deservingness, suggests that reasoning with children should include a discussion of the desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the potential r e c i p i e n t . This may help to promote children's understanding and acceptance of the notion of deservingness of human respect, consideration, etc. and further enhance the e f f e c t s of induction. In this way, adults themselves may also benefit as potential recipients of children's "helping" behaviors. As discussed in the review of l i t e r a t u r e in Chapter II and also e a r l i e r in t h i s chapter, parental moral values and c h i l d -rearing practices such as modeling, reinforcement and nurturance have influence on children's moral development and behavior. The fact that these variables were not controlled in the present study might have "explained" why the lack of an induction e f f e c t . This, admittedly, is one l i m i t a t i o n of the present study. It should be noted, however, that these "variables" were not controlled because of lack of available research l o g i s t i c s . For example, there was a l i m i t as to the extent of cooperation one could expect from the school authority--the school p r i n c i p a l s and teachers were not p a r t i c u l a r l y enthusiastic about 1 28 attempts to involve parents in the study with a view to having their moral values and ch i l d - r e a r i n g practices discussed. Further, there was a l i m i t as to the time and other resources available to the investigator. The 10 pre-experimental questions and the reading comprehension test used to control . for individual differences prior to treatment were the best the investigator could do at the time of the experiment. Nevertheless, to ensure that findings of the present study were not systematically biased one way or the other, parental moral values and child-rearing practices were treated as a "random variable." In other words, random assignment of subjects, whose parental moral values and ch i l d - r e a r i n g practices were unknown to the investigator, to the treatment conditions was studiously implemented. This, hopefully, would a l l e v i a t e one's concern about the influence of parental moral values and child-rearing practices on the outcomes of this study. One major concern of this study was to reduce "demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976; Christensen, 1980; Cozby, 1981) of the present investigation. One step included in the present study was keeping anonymity at an optimum and the influences of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y at a minimum. The fact that some subjects pledged and also made no donations seems to indicate that the study was successful in i t s attempt to assure subjects that they would remain anonymous. Those who pledged to donate and actually donated l a t e r , on the other hand, seemed to indicate that they were genuine in their desire to help. This seems to be es p e c i a l l y true when responses from subjects who chatted with the investigator a f t e r the 129 experiment are taken into account. Some of the subjects who pledged and donated a l l 50 cents and spoke to the investigator after the experiment indicated that they donated a l l 50 cents because they just l i k e d to help and f e l t donating l i t t l e was "cheap". Others indicated that they donated because they f e l t Mr. Brown was old and without a refrigerator and therefore would l i k e to help him. S t i l l some others indicated that they were aware of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Mr. Brown but were concerned with the fact that he was old and would l i k e to help him. A l l these responses seem to show an underlying a l t r u i s t i c motive in the subjects. In everyday situations, the concern of people seems to be focused more on helping behavior per se rather than the motivation behind the behavior. In future research on donating behavior in children, i t seems important to e x p l i c i t l y ask the subjects to describe the reasons why they make or do not make donations. This may help to more c l e a r l y ascertain the motivational differences between the doners and the non-doners. In conclusion, the present study has been conducted to determine whether induction, children's perception of the deservingness of help and personality attractiveness of a potential recipient influenced their helping behaviors. The findings and their implications for education and for research have been described. To recapitulate and to summarize, the major contributions of the present study can be described as follows, subject to any l i m i t a t i o n s placed on the generality of the dependent measures and the operationalization of the independent variables (recipient deservingness and personality 130 attractiveness) being examined: It 1. provides clear experimental evidence that children l i k e people who have an a t t r a c t i v e personality and d i s l i k e people who have an unattractive personality; 2. indicates that children perceive deservingness in terms of personality attractiveness such that a person with an a t t r a c t i v e personality is perceived as more deserving than a person with an unattractive personality; 3. indicates that children's helping behavior i s influenced more by r e l a t i v e l y "concrete" and a f f e c t i v e variables such as personality attractiveness than "abstract" and cognitive variables such as deservingness of help; 4. shows that children are more generous toward people with an a t t r a c t i v e personality than those with an unattractive -personality; 5. shows that "discrepancy" may exist between "attitude" and "behavior" in children. One should note here, however, that although no s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e effects of induction and recipient deservingness on the three outcome measures were observed, one would not conclude that these two variables were not important in influencing children's helping behaviors, thereby rejecting, for example, the assertions of Saltzstein (1976) and Hoffman (e.g., 1977, 1979) on the effects of induction. These findings could have been a result of the "saliency" of the stimulus object, i . e . , the elderly person in the study. For the subjects might have responded to the imagined dependency condition of Mr. Brown and reacted to him favorably regardless of induction and 131 deservingness considerations. The lack of an induction and recipient deservingness effect also could be accounted for by the other interpretations discussed e a r l i e r in t h i s chapter. In view of the important educational implications of induction, as discussed in Chapters I and II, the need for further research is indicated. Such research, hopefully, w i l l expand our current knowledge of induction, thereby enhancing i t s usefulness as a means of behavior change. The finding that the "nice" Mr. Brown was better l i k e d and received more pledged donations than the "mean" Mr. Brown, on the other hand, supports the notion of a d u l t - c h i l d relationships proposed by Ginott (1965, 1969, 1972). It suggests that i t might be worthwhile for teachers to develop their capacity for understanding and acceptance, thereby enhancing the l i k e l i h o o d of e l i c i t i n g children's cooperative and helping behaviors. This study i s , of course, a small e f f o r t towards the understanding of helping behaviors in children and towards moral education more generally. If the volume of recent publications on moral/values education (e.g., AVER 1978a, 1978b, 1979; Williams, 1979; Williams & Wright, 1980) i s any indication, then i t appears that the importance of moral education in public schools is beginning to gain the recognition that i t deserves. One may question, however, whether moral education i s complete without considering ways to help foster the development of altruism in children. The implications of the findings from the present investigation, discussed e a r l i e r in t h i s chapter, may be seen as a small contribution of this study towards moral education. 133 References Adams, J. S. Inequity in s o c i a l exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Aronfreed, J. Conduct and conscience. New York: Academic Press, 1968. AVER. The eld e r l y . Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978. (a) AVER. Prejudice. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, .1978. (b) AVER. War. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1979. Bandura, A. Soc i a l learning theory. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971. Bandura, A. Soc i a l learning theory. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Bandura, A., Walters, R. H. Adolescent aggression: A study of the influence of c h i l d t raining practices and family i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . . New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., & Howard, J. A. Inducing af f e c t about self or other: Effects on generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 1979, J_5, 164-167. Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., Howard, J. A., & Dino, G. A. Empathy in young children: Relation to parents' empathy, a f f e c t i o n , and emphasis on the- feelings of others. Developmental Psychology, 1980, j_6, 243-244. Barnett, M. E., & Bryan, J. H. Effects of competition with outcome feedback on children's helping behavior. 134 Developmental Psychology, 1974, J J ) , 838-842. Baron, R. A. Behavioral e f f e c t s of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n : Compliance with requests from l i k e d and d i s l i k e d others. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 25, 325-326. Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genet ic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 7_5 , 43-88. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 1-101. Bennett, R. Attitudes of the young toward the old: A review of research. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1976, 55, 136— 139. Bennett, R., & Eckman, J. Attitudes in the U. S. aged: A c r i t i c a l examination of recent l i t e r a t u r e and implications for future research. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging. Washington, D. C : American Psychological Association, 1973, 575-598. Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. Affecting the salience of the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y norm: Eff e c t s of past help on the response to dependency relationships. Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 275-281. Berkowitz, L., & Friedman, P. Some s o c i a l class differences in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 1967, 5, 217-225. Bryan, J. H. Model a f f e c t and children's imitative altruism. Child Development, 1971, 42, 2061-2065. Bryan, J. H. Why children help: A review. Journal of Soc i a l  Issues, 1972, 28^ 87-104. 135 Bryan, J. H. Children's cooperation and helping behaviors. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Bryan, J . H . & London, P. A l t r u i s t i c behavior by children. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73, 200-211. Bryan, J. H., & Walbek, N. H. Preaching and practicing generosity: Children's actions and reactions. Child Development, 1970, 4J_, 329-353. (a) Bryan, J. H., & Walbek, N. H. The impact of words and deeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Development, 1970, 4J_, 747-757. (b) Buckley, N. , Siegel, L. S., & Ness, S. Egocentrism, empathy, and a l t r u i s t i c ' behavior in young children. Developmental Psychology, 1979, _1_5, 329-330. Carlsmith, J. 'M. , Ellsworth, P. C , & Aronson, E. Methods of research in soc i a l psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976. Cozby, P. C. Methods in behavioral research (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a : Mayfield Publishing Co., 1981. Christensen, L. Experimental methodology (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. Dixon, W. J., Sc Brown, M. B. (Eds.), BMDP: Biomedical computer  programs, P-series. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1979. Dlugokinski, E. L., Sc Firestone, I. J . Other-centeredness and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to charitable appeals: Effects of perceived d i s c i p l i n e . Developmental Psychology, 1974, J_0, 21-28. Eisenberg-Berg, N. , Sc Geisheker, E. Content of preachings and 136 power of the model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15, 168-175. Feshback, N. D., Feshbach, S. The relationship between empathy and aggression in two age groups. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 102-107. Finn, J. D. Multivariance: Univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, covariance, regression and repeated measures, User's guide. Chicago: International Educational Services, 1 977. Fischer, W. F. Sharing in pre-school children as a function of amount and type of reinforcement. Genetic Psychology  Monographs, 1963, 68, 215-245. Freedman, J. L., Sears, D. 0., & Carlsmith, J. M. Soc i a l  psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Gates, A. I., & MacGinitie, W. H. Technical manual for the  Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965. Gelfand, D., Hartmann, D. P., Cromer, C. C , Smith, C. L., & Page, B. C. The effects of i n s t r u c t i o n a l prompts and praise on children's donation rates. Chi Id Development, 1975, 46, 980-983. Ginott, H. G. Between parent and c h i l d . New York: Avon Books, 1 965. Ginott, H. G. Between parent and teenager. New York: Avon Books, 1969. Ginott, H. G. Teacher and c h i l d . New York: Avon Books, 1972. Good, T., & Brophy, J. E. Educational psychology: A r e a l i s t i c 1 37 approach (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981. Gross, A. E., Wallston, B. S., & P i l i a v i n , I. M. Beneficiary attractiveness and cost as determinants of responses to routine requests for help. Sociometry, 1975, 38, 131-140. Grusec, J. E. Power and the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s e l f - d e n i a l . Child Development, 1971, 42, 93-105. Grusec, J. E. Demand ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the modeling experiment: Altruism as a function of age and aggression. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 139-148. Grusec, J. E., Kuczynski, L., Rushton, J. P., & Zimutis, Z. M. Modeling, d i r e c t instruction, and a t t r i b u t i o n s : E f f e c t s on altruism. Developmental Psychology, 1978, j_4, 51-57. Grusec, J. E., Saas-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. The role of example and moral exhortation in the tr a i n i n g of altruism. Child Development, 1978, 49, 920-923. Grusec, J. E., & Skubiski, S. L. Model nurturance, demand ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the modeling experiment and altruism. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1 970, 14, 352-359. Harris, M. B. Models, norms and sharing. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 147-153. Hays, W. L. S t a t i s t i c s . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1981 . Hetherington, E. M., & Parke, R. D. Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Hoffman, M. L. Parent d i s c i p l i n e and the c h i l d ' s consideration for others. Child Development, 1963, 34, 573-588. 1 3 8 Hoffman, M. L. Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psychology (Vol.2, 3 r d ed.). New York: Wiley, 1 9 7 0 . (a) Hoffman, M. L. Conscience, personality, and s o c i a l i z a t i o n techniques. Human Development, 1 9 7 0 , J_3, 9 0 - 1 2 6 . (b) Hoffman, M. L. A l t r u i s t i c behavior and the parent-child relationship. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , 3 J j . 9 3 7 - 9 4 3 . (a) Hoffman, M. L. Moral i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n , parental power, and the nature of parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , J J _ j _ 2 2 8 - 2 3 9 . (b) Hoffman, M. L. Sex differences in moral i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n and values. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , 3 2 , 7 2 0 - 7 2 9 . (c) Hoffman, M. L. Empathy, role taking, g u i l t , and development of a l t r u i s t i c motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development  and behavior: Theory, research, and soc i a l i ssues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1 9 7 6 , 1 2 4 - 1 4 3 . Hoffman, M. L. Personality and so c i a l development. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of • Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 5 - 3 2 1 . Hoffman, M. L. Development of moral thought, feeling, and behavior. American Psychologist, 1 9 7 9 , 3 4 , 9 5 8 - 9 6 6 . Hoffman, M. L., & S a l t z s t e i n , H. D. Parent d i s c i p l i n e and the ch i l d ' s moral development. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 1 9 6 7 , 5, 4 5 - 5 7 . Hook, J. G., & Cook, T. D. Equity theory and the cognitive a b i l i t y of children. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 9 , 8^, 4 2 9 -139 445. Johnson, M. J. Sex role learning in the nuclear family. Child' Development, 1963, 34, 319-333. Kagan, J., & Lang, C. Psychology and education, an introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. Kohlberg, L. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex di f ferences. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1966, 82-173. Kohlberg, L. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral  development and behavior: Theory, research, and soc i a l  issues. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1976..31-53. Kounin, J. S. D i s c i p l i n e and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Krebs, D. L. Altruism-An examination of the concept and a review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73, 258-302. Krebs, D. L., & Wispe, L. On defining altruism: A rejoinder to L. J. Severy. Journal of Social Issues, 1974, 3_0, 194-199. Kriss , M. , Indenbaum, E., & Tesch, F. Message type and status of interactants as determinants of telephone helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 856-859. Leeds, R. Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1963, 9, 229-240. Lefrancois, G. R. Psychology for teaching (3rd ed.). Belmont, C a l i f . : Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1979. 1 40 Lenrow, P. B. Studies in sympathy. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, coqnition, and personality: Empirical studies. New York: Springer, 1965, 269-294. Lerner, M. J., M i l l e r , D. T., & Holmes, J. G. Deserving and the emergence of forms of j u s t i c e . In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in exper imental soc i a l psychology (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1976. Levine, L. E., & Hoffman, M. L. Early sex differences in empathy. Developmental Psychology, 1976, V2, 557-558. Long, G. T., & Lerner, M. J. Deserving: The "personal contract" and a l t r u i s t i c behavior by children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 551-556. Macaulay, J., & Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Maccoby, E. E. Sex differences in i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1966, 25-55. Masters, J. C. E f f e c t s of s o c i a l comparison upon children's self-reinforcement and altruism toward competitors and friends. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 64-72. McKinney, J. P. The development of values: Prescriptive or proscriptive? Human Development, 1971, J_4, 71-80. McTavish, D. G. Perceptions of old people: A review of research methodologies and findings. Gerontologist, 1971, _M_, 90-101. Middlebrook, P. N. Soc i a l psychology and modern l i f e (2nd ed.). New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, Inc., 1980. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J. H. Training charity in children. 141 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 408-415. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J . H. Affect expressions and children's imitative altruism. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1972, 6, 195-203. Midlarsky, E., Bryan, J. H., & Brickman, P. Aversive approval: Interactive effects of modeling and reinforcement on a l t r u i s t i c behavior. Child Development, 1973, 44, 321-328. M i l l e r , D. T. Pro-social behavior in children. Manuscript in preparation. Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C , Canada, 1981. M i l l e r , D. T., & Smith, J . The e f f e c t s of own deservingness and deservingness of others on children's helping behavior. Child Development, 1977, 48, 617-620. M i l l e r , D. T., & McCann, C. D. Children's reactions to the perpetrators and victims of i n j u s t i c e s . Chi Id Development, 1979, 50, 861-868. Mussen, P. H., Rutherford, E., Harris, S., & Keasey, C. B. Honesty and altruism among pre-adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3, 169-194. Nelson, S., & Dweck, C. Motivation and competence as determinants of young children's reward a l l o c a t i o n . Developmental Psychology, 1977, ±3_, 192-197. Olejnik, A. B., & McKinney, J. P. Parental value orientation and generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8, 311. Papalia, D. E., & Olds, S. W. A c h i l d ' s world. New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1975. 142 Piaget, J . Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1970, 703-732. Regan, D. T. Effects of a favor and l i k i n g on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 17, 627-639. Rice, M. E., & Grusec, J. E. Saying and doing: Effects on observer performance. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32, 584-593. Rosenhan, D. L. Some origins of concern for others. In P. Mussen, M. Covington, & J. Langer (Eds.), Trends and issues  in developmental psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969, 134-153. Rosenhan, D. The natural s o c i a l i z a t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c autonomy. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping  behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1970. 251-268 Rubin, K. H., & Schneider, F. W. The relationship between moral judgement, egocentrism, and a l t r u i s t i c behavior. Child  Development, 1973, 44, 661-665. Rushton, J. P. Generosity in children: Immediate and long term effects of modeling, preaching, and moral judgment. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 3J_, 459-466. Rushton, J. P. S o c i a l i z a t i o n and the a l t r u i s t i c behavior of children. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1976, 8_3, 898-913. Rushton, J. P., & Owen, D. Immediate and delayed e f f e c t s of TV modeling and preaching on children's generosity. B r i t i s h  Journal of Soc i a l and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, J_4, 309-310. 143 Rutherford, E., & Mussen, P. Generosity in nursery school boys. Child Development, 1968, 39, 755-765. Sa l t z s t e i n , H. D. Social influence and moral development: A perspective on the role of parents and peers. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research,  and soc i a l issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976, 253-265. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of c h i l d rearing. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Severy, L. J . Comments and rejoinders. Journal of Soc i a l Issues, 1974, 30, 189-198. Shaffer, D. R. Soc i a l and personality development, Monterey, C a l i f . : Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1979. Stainback, S. B., & Stainback, W. C. Classroom d i s c i p l i n e j_ A postive. approach. Sp r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C. C. Thomas, 1977. Staub, E. A c h i l d in d i s t r e s s : The effects of focusing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on children on their attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 152-154. (a) Staub, E. A c h i l d in d i s t r e s s : The influence of age and number of witnesses on children's attempts to help. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, J_4, 130-140. (b) Staub, E. A c h i l d in d i s t r e s s : The influence of modeling and nurturance on children's attempts to help. Developmental  Psychology, 1971, 5, 124-133. (a) Staub, E. Helping a person in d i s t r e s s : The influence of im p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t "rules" of conduct on children and adults. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1971, 144 JJ7, 137-1 45. (b) Staub, E. The use of role playing and induction in children's learning of helping and sharing behavior. Child Development , 1971, 42, 805-817. (d) Staub, E. Positive soc i a l behavior and morality. New York: Academic Press, 1978. (Volume 1 ) . Staub, E. Positive soc i a l behavior and morality. New York: Academic Press, 1979. (Volume 2 ) . Staub, E., & Sherk, L. Need approval, children's sharing behavior, and r e c i p r o c i t y in sharing. Child Development, 1970, 4J_, 243-253. Tanner, L. N. Classroom d i s c i p l i n e for ef feet ive teaching and learnning. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., &.Walster, G. W. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1973, 25, 151-176. Weissbrod, C. Noncontingent warmth induction, cognitive style, and children's i n i t i a t i v e donation and rescue e f f o r t behaviors. Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1976, 3 4 , 2 7 4 - 2 8 1 . Weissbrod, C. S. The impact of warmth and instructions on donation. Child Development, 1980, 5J_, 2 7 9 - 2 8 1 . Welch, I. D., & Hughes, W. S. D i s c i p l i n e : A shared experience. New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1977. White, G. M. Immediate and deferred effects of model observation and guided and unguided rehearsal on donating and stealing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 139-148. 145 Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. W. M. Children of six cultures. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Wicker, A. W. Attitudes versus action: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 41-78. Williams, D. M. A study of moral education in Surrey, B.C. secondary schools. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1979, 25, 89-102. Williams, D. M., & Wright, I. Using t e l e v i s i o n to stimulate learning and develop evaluative reasoning. The History and Social Science Teacher, 1980, J_5, 272-275. W i l l i s , J. B., Feldman, N. S., & Ruble, D. N. Children's generosity as influenced by deservedness of reward and type of r e c i p i e n t . Journal of Educat ional Psychology, 1977, 69, 33-35. Wispe, L. G. Positive forms of s o c i a l behavior: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 2j3, 1-19. Wrightsman, L. S. Soc i a l psychology (2nd ed.). Monterey, C a l i f . : Brooks/Cole, 1977. Yarrow, M. R., Scott, P. M., & Waxier, C. A. Learning concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8, 240-260. Zussman, J . U. Relationship of demographic factors to parental d i s c i p l i n e techniques. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 685-686. 146 Appendix A Induction Statements This story i s about old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones you saw in the big picture. We a l l know that i t i s good to be helpful and generous to people. But I think we should be especially helpful, and generous to the elderly people who need our help. They would fee l so happy i f we help them. Just imagine how good you feel when you are t h i r s t y and someone gives you a drink or when you don't have a pen or pencil for your assignment and somebody loans you one. The old people in need of our help w i l l f e e l good too i f we help them. After a l l , old people are not as fortunate as we are. For example, i f we need money for school supplies, we can get i t from our parents. But many elderly people, especially those who don't have any re l a t i v e s or friends, have no one to turn to when they need something but cannot afford i t . Even i f they try to look for a job, chances are no one w i l l hire them because they are old. They would be so happy i f we help them. Many elde r l y people are very lonely because they are l i v i n g by themselves without a r e l a t i v e or a friend. Just imagine how lonely you would fe e l i f you were l i v i n g by yourself, without a r e l a t i v e or a friend. Wouldn't you feel good i f people do something nice for you, say by bringing you some comic s t r i p s to read? The lonely old people w i l l feel good too i f we do something nice for them. So l e t ' s try our best to be helpful and generous whenever we know they need our help. 147 Appendix B Non-Induction Statements This story is about old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones you saw in the big picture. There are many good things about being old. When we are old, we have more time to relax. Old people do not have to go to school, have no homework, and don't have to go to work. They can spend their time t r a v e l l i n g , sightseeing, gardening, or just taking a nice walk. They can do whatever they enjoy doing. This is one good thing about being old. Compared with younger people, l i k e our parents, old people do not have as much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Our parents have to raise the family, take care of the children, and go to work. Old people do not have these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . They have already f u l f i l l e d them. Instead of having to look after and teach their children, they can now simply enjoy their company, and/or the company of their grandchildren. It i s nice to be free. The government takes care of the elderly people too. Knowing that old people generally do not work at jobs, the government provides a number of special services for the e l d e r l y . These include the retirement pension plans, the old age security plans, and the Pharmacare program. These programs make sure that the elderly, though no longer employed, w i l l s t i l l have a minimum level of income. Elderly people also enjoy other s o c i a l benefits l i k e reduced bus fares and special admission rates for movies. So, o v e r a l l , being old is not so bad. 1 48 Appendix C Two Levels of Deservingness: High vs. Low HIGH: Mr. Brown enjoys cooking. He had been working very hard in order to earn enough money to buy his own r e f r i g e r a t o r . After working hard for two years, he f i n a l l y saved enough money and bought his new r e f r i g e r a t o r three weeks ago. Unfortunately, because of an e l e c t r i c wiring problem, the refrigerator was damaged beyond repair last week. The e l e c t r i c i a n who did the wiring has moved out of town and there i s no way to reach him. LOW: Mr. Brown enjoys cooking. He has met a number of r i c h neighbours in the area where he is now l i v i n g . One of his neighbours gave him a new refrigerator for free three weeks ago after making a big fortune in business. Unfortunately, because of an e l e c t r i c wiring problem, the refrigerator was damaged beyond repair last week. Mr. Brown should not complain, however, since he did not pay careful attention to the wiring instructions. 149 Appendix D Personality Attractiveness: High Like many other elderly people, Mr. Brown i s 70 years old. He i s l i v i n g by himself. Mr. Brown i s a very nice person. Here are just two examples to show how nice he i s . One day, two boys were playing baseball on the street and accidentally broke his window. Mr. Brown was very unhappy and caught hold of one of the boys. Instead of being angry at him, however, he said to the boy ni c e l y : "The window i s broken. To f i x i t w i l l take money and you obviously do not have that kind of money. I don't want to t e l l your mother about this because she w i l l probably be very upset. This means that you and I should try to find out what can be done about th i s broken window. In any case, remember: Baseball is not to be played on the street." Mr. Brown and the boy then talked about what needed to be done. On another day, Mr. Brown did not get his evening newspaper. He was disappointed and when he saw the newspaper boy, he told him ni c e l y : "My paper has been forgotten many times. I am disappointed when I expect something and then never get i t . Everybody forgets something sometimes, no one is perfect, and I am not expecting you to be perfect. But people should do what they are supposed to do. Please keep this in mind and I expect you not to forget my paper again." 150 Appendix E Personality Attractiveness: Low Like many other elderly people, Mr. Brown i s 70 years old. He i s l i v i n g by himself. Mr. Brown is a very mean person. Here are just two examples to show how mean he i s . One day, two boys were playing baseball on the street and accidentally broke his window. Mr. Brown was very unhappy and caught hold of one of the boys. Instead of being nice to him, however, he said to the boy an g r i l y : "What is your name, my boy? Look what you have done! Why must you be such a pest? You are going to pay for t h i s . Do you know how much this w i l l cost? C a l l your mother up and t e l l her- that I want to talk to her. You are going to stay here u n t i l she comes over to see me. This w i l l teach you not to play baseball on the street again." Mr. Brown then kept the b a l l and made the boy phone his mother. On another day, Mr. Brown did not get his evening newspaper. He was disappointed and when he saw the newspaper boy, he told him angrily: "How many times have you forgotten my paper? Can't you remember anything? T e l l me what you did with my paper, give i t to someone else? Do you expect me to pay for the paper that I didn't get? If you do t h i s again, you know what you w i l l get when you come to c o l l e c t the money. You had better be more careful from now on." 151 Appendix F Manipulation Checks and Outcome Measures 1. Should we be helpful to the eld e r l y who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 2. Should we be generous to the elderly who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 3. Do you think children w i l l l i k e Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 4. Do you think you w i l l l i k e someone as nice/mean as Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 5. How did Mr. Brown get his refrigerator? Answer: " 1. He bought i t with 2. He got i t for free from money he earned. a r i c h neighbor. 6. Who damaged the refrigerator? Answer: 1. An e l e c t r i c i a n 2. Mr. Brown 7. Does Mr. Brown deserve another refrigerator? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 1 52 8. Mr. Brown i s l i v i n g by himself. He enjoys reading stories written by children. How many short s t o r i e s (any story, about half-a-page long each) would you be w i l l i n g to write for Mr. Brown? (They w i l l be co l l e c t e d along with the coloring pictures next Monday). Answer: 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 9. If you would l i k e to give money to help Mr. Brown buy another r e f r i g e r a t o r , you are welcome to do so. Please c i r c l e below the amount you would l i k e to give. You w i l l be given an envelope to put your donations in l a t e r . If you don't fe e l l i k e giving anything, please c i r c l e OC below. Answer: 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 00 1 53 Appendix G Treatment Condition: I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 This story is about old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones you saw in the big picture. We a l l know that i t i s good to be helpful and generous to people. But I think we should be especially helpful and generous to the elderly people who need our help. They would feel so happy i f we help them. Just imagine how good you f e e l when you are t h i r s t y and someone gives you a drink or when you don't have a pen or pencil for your assignment and somebody loans you one. The old people in need of our help w i l l f e e l good too i f we help them. After a l l , old people are not as fortunate as we are. For example, i f we need money.for school supplies, we can get i t from our parents. But many elderly people, es p e c i a l l y those who don't have any relatives or friends, have no one to turn to when they need something but cannot afford i t . Even i f they try to look for a job, chances are no one w i l l hire them because they are old. They would be so happy i f we help them. Many e l d e r l y people are very lonely because they are l i v i n g by themselves without a r e l a t i v e or a fri e n d . Just imagine how lonely you would feel i f you were l i v i n g by yourself, without a re l a t i v e or a friend. Wouldn't you feel good i f people do something nice for you, say by bringing you some comic s t r i p s to read? The lonely old people w i l l f e e l good too i f we do something nice for them. So l e t ' s try our best to be helpful and generous whenever we know they need our help. 154 1. Should we be helpful to the elderly who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 2. Should we be generous to the elderly who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never Like many other eld e r l y people, Mr. Brown i s 70 years old. He i s l i v i n g by himself. Mr. Brown i s a very nice person. Here are just two examples to show how nice he i s . One day, two boys were playing baseball on the street and accidentally broke his window. Mr. Brown was very unhappy and caught hold of one of the boys. Instead of being angry at him, however, he said to the boy nicely: "The window is broken. To f i x i t w i l l take money and you obviously do not have that kind of money. I don't want to t e l l your mother about this because she w i l l probably be very upset. This means that you and I should try to find out what can be done about this broken window. In any case, remember: Baseball is not to be played on the street." Mr. Brown and the boy then talked about what needed to be done. On another day, Mr. Brown did not get his evening newspaper. He was disappointed and when he saw the newspaper boy, he t o l d him nicely: "My paper has been forgottenten many times. I am disappointed when I expect something and then never get i t . 155 Everybody forgets something sometimes, no one is perfect, and I am not expecting you to be perfect. But people should do what they are supposed to do. Please keep th i s in mind and I expect you not to forget my paper again." 3. Do you think children w i l l l i k e Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 4. Do you think you w i l l l i k e someone as nice as Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no Mr. Brown enjoys cooking. He had been working very hard in order to earn enough money to buy his own r e f r i g e r a t o r . After working hard for two years, he f i n a l l y saved enough money and bought his new refrigerator three weeks ago. Unfortunately, because of an e l e c t r i c wiring problem, the ref r i g e r a t o r was damaged beyond repair l a s t week. The e l e c t r i c i a n who did the wiring has moved out of town and there is no way to reach him. 5. How did Mr. Brown get his refrigerator? Answer: 1. He bought i t with 2. He got i t for free from money he earned. a r i c h neighbor. 156 6. Who damaged the refrigerator? Answer: 1. An e l e c t r i c i a n 2. Mr. Brown 7. Does Mr. Brown deserve another refrigerator? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 8. Mr. Brown i s l i v i n g by himself. He enjoys reading stories written by children. How many short stories (any story, about half-a-page long each) would you be w i l l i n g to write for Mr. Brown? (They w i l l be co l l e c t e d along with the coloring pictures next Monday). Answer: 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 9. If you would l i k e to give money to help Mr. Brown buy another r e f r i g e r a t o r , you are welcome to do so. Please c i r c l e below the amount you would l i k e to give. You w i l l be given an envelope to put your donations in l a t e r . If you don't feel l i k e giving anything, please c i r c l e 00 below. Answer: 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 00 157 Appendix H Treatment Condition: I l l u s t r a t i o n 2 This story i s about old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones you saw in the big picture. There are many good things about being old. When we are old, we have more time to relax. Old people do not have to go to school, have no homework, and don't have to go to work. They can spend their time t r a v e l l i n g , sightseeing, gardening, or just taking a nice walk. They can do whatever they enjoy doing. This is one good thing about being old. Compared with younger people, l i k e our parents, old people do not have as much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Our parents have to raise the family, take care of the children, and go to work. Old people do not have these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . They have already f u l f i l l e d them. Instead of having to look after and teach their children, they can now simply enjoy their company, and/or the company of their grandchildren. It i s nice to be free. The government takes care of the elderly people too. Knowing that old people generally do not work at jobs, the government provides a number of special services for the e l d e r l y . These include the retirement pension plans, the old age security plans, and the Pharmacare program. These programs make sure that the eld e r l y , though no longer employed, w i l l s t i l l have a minimum le v e l of income. Elderly people also enjoy other s o c i a l benefits l i k e reduced bus fares and special admission rates for movies. So, o v e r a l l , being old i s not so bad. 158 1. Should we be helpful to the elderly who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 2. Should we be generous to the elderly who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never Like many other elderly people, Mr. Brown i s 70 years old. He i s l i v i n g by himself. Mr. Brown is a very mean person. Here are just two examples to show how mean he i s . One day, two boys were playing baseball on the street and accidentally broke his window. Mr. Brown was very unhappy and caught hold of one of the boys. Instead of being nice to him, however, he said to the boy ang r i l y : "What is your name, my boy? Look what you have done! Why must you be such a pest? You are going to pay for t h i s . Do you know how much t h i s w i l l cost? C a l l your mother up and t e l l her that I want to talk to her. You are going to stay here u n t i l she comes over to see me. This w i l l teach you not to play baseball on the street again." Mr. Brown then kept the b a l l and made the boy phone his mother. On another day, Mr. Brown did not get his evening newspaper. He was disappointed and when he saw the newspaper boy, he told him angrily: "How many times have you forgotten my paper? Can't you remember anything? T e l l me what you did with my paper, give 159 i t to someone else? Do you expect me to pay for the paper that I didn't get? If you do th i s again, you know what you w i l l get when you come to c o l l e c t the money. You had better be more careful from now on." 3. Do you think children w i l l l i k e Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: cert a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 4. Do you think you w i l l l i k e someone as mean as Mr. Brown? 2 1 0 Answer: c e r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no Mr. Brown enjoys cooking. He has met a number of r i c h neighbours in the area where he i s now l i v i n g . One of his neighbours gave him a new ref r i g e r a t o r for free three weeks ago after making a big fortune in business. Unfortunately, because of an e l e c t r i c wiring problem, the refrigerator was damaged beyond repair l a s t week. Mr. Brown should not complain, however, since he did not pay careful attention to the wiring instruct ions. 5. How did Mr. Brown get his refrigerator? Answer: 1. He bought i t with 2. He got i t for free from money he earned. a r i c h neighbor. 160 6. Who damaged the refrigerator? Answer: 1. An e l e c t r i c i a n 2. Mr. Brown 7. Does Mr. Brown deserve another refrigerator? 2 1 0 Answer: ce r t a i n l y yes not sure c e r t a i n l y no 8. Mr. Brown i s l i v i n g by himself. He enjoys reading stories written by children. How many short stories (any story, about half-a-page long each) would you be w i l l i n g to write for Mr. Brown? (They w i l l be co l l e c t e d along with the coloring pictures next Monday). Answer: 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 9. If you would l i k e to give money to help Mr. Brown buy another r e f r i g e r a t o r , you are welcome to do so. Please c i r c l e below the amount you would l i k e to give. You w i l l be given an envelope to put your donations in l a t e r . If you don't feel l i k e giving anything, please c i r c l e 00 below. Answer: 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 00 161 Appendix I Pre-experimental (Covariate) Questions 1. How much does 50 cents mean to you? 4 3 2 1 Answer: very much much l i t t l e very l i t t l e 2. How much does five d o l l a r s mean to you? 4 3 2 1 Answer: very much much l i t t l e very l i t t l e 3. How-much do you enjoy writing stories? 4 3 2 1 Answer: very much much l i t t l e very l i t t l e 4. How much do you enjoy reading comic s t r i p s ? 4 3 2 1 Answer: very much much l i t t l e very l i t t l e 5. Should we be helpful to the elderly (70 years or older) who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 6. Should we be helpful to poor children? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 162 7. Should we be generous to the elderly (70 years or older) who need our help? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 8. Should we be generous to poor children? 3 2 1 0 Answer: always sometimes rarely never 9. Do your grandparents l i v e with you? 3 2 1 0 Answer: a l l the time sometimes rarely never 10. Do you v i s i t with or work for elderly people (70 years or older)? 3 2 1 0 Answer: a l l the time sometimes rarely never 1 6 3 Appendix J Instructions Experimenter A: "Good morning, I'm Mrs. Mac and this i s Mr. Leung. We have come to ask for your help on some projects. Mr. Leung, would you l i k e to talk to the children f i r s t ? " Experimenter B: "Thank you, Mrs. Mac. "Good morning, boys and g i r l s , I go to school at UBC. Do you know what UBC is? I am a good friend of Mrs. Mac's. Some time ago Mrs. Mac told me that she would be coming to the schools and I thought i t would be a good opportunity for me to come along so that I can ask for your help with a project I have been working on. My project has nothing to do with Mrs. Mac's. Becuase my project takes more time, Mrs. Mac has agreed to l e t me do the f i r s t part of my project with you before she w i l l talk to you about hers. She w i l l then l e t me f i n i s h up the rest of my project with you before we go. We w i l l be here for about an hour. "It would be best for my project i f we can s i t as far apart from one another as we can. So I would l i k e to rearrange the desks a l i t t l e b i t . Please remain seated u n t i l I give you the instructions." Rearrange desks. "Please clear your desk top so that you have only a pencil and an eraser on your desk." Check to see their desks are clear and have pencils and 164 erasers ready. "My project has two parts. The f i r s t part is to find out how children f e e l about certain things and how well they can read and understand s t o r i e s . Let me pass out the materials to you f i r s t . Mrs. Mac, would you please help me pass out these booklets?" Pass out booklets. "At the bottom right-hand corner here (show c l a s s ) , there are two l e t t e r s , B and G. Do you a l l see them? Would you please c i r c l e B i f you are a boy and c i r c l e G i f you are a g i r l . "Please don't write your name down since I don't need to know who answers what. A l l I need to know i s how di f f e r e n t children feel about certain things. "When I read the questions on thi s page to you, please read them to yourselves also and then answer the questions by drawing a l i n e under the answer that shows how you f e e l , l i k e t h i s (show on board). "Remember, di f f e r e n t children may have d i f f e r e n t feelings about the same thing. For example, some children l i k e to play hockey a l o t while others l i k e to play something else. So, please answer the que'stions completely on your own without looking at another person's answers. "Is this clear? Are there any questions? Okay, l e t ' s start at the f i r s t one." Do the whole page with c l a s s . "We have now finished the f i r s t page. Would you please check that you have an answer for each question?" Wait for them. 165 "Okay, l e t ' s fo l d the f i r s t page back l i k e this (show class) so that we have the second page facing us. "On th i s page and the next two pages, I would l i k e to find out how well children can read and understand s t o r i e s . So, please write your name at the top of the page, over here (show c l a s s ) . "On t h i s page, there are many short stories with blanks in them. Let's take a look at the second last one on the l e f t hand side, over here (show c l a s s ) . The story begins with 'Mother and dad had been shopping.' Do you a l l see i t ? There are two blanks in the story, blank 1 and blank 2. With these blanks in the story, the story doesn't r e a l l y make sense. However, below this story, there are two l i s t s of words, l i s t 1 and l i s t 2. Do you see them? What I would l i k e you to do i s f i l l in blank 1 with the best word from l i s t 1 and f i l l in blank 2 with the best word from l i s t 2 so that the story w i l l make sense. Now because the blanks are small, you don't have to actually f i l l in the blanks. What you should do i s , once you have chosen the best word from the l i s t , just underline i t l i k e t h i s (show on board) so that I know that's the word that goes into the blank. Is this clear? Do you a l l know how to mark your answers now? "There are three pages l i k e t h i s to work on. If you f i n i s h a l l three pages before I say 'stop,' you should go back and check your work. We sometimes make mistakes. Checking over our work w i l l help us locate our mistakes so that we can correct them. If , after checking your work and you s t i l l have time l e f t , you may read a book or do something quietly in your seat. "If you wish to change an answer. Erase your f i r s t mark 1 66 completely, then mark the answer you want. "Don't spend too much time on any one question. If you find a question too d i f f i c u l t , go on to the next one and come back to i t l a t e r when you have time.. "Are there any questions? Okay, l e t ' s start now." Time: 25 minutes. Check name while they are working. When time i s up, say: "Children, the time i s up, may I have your booklets, please." Collect booklets from children. Then say: "Mrs. Mac, would you l i k e to talk to the children now?" Experimenter A: "My project is more fun. It has to do with coloring. I work for a foster parent agency in Vancouver. This year, we decided to send personally colored greeting pictures to the homeless children under our care in A f r i c a , Asia, and South America at Christmas. We want some Canadian children to help us with the coloring. The pictures look l i k e t h i s (show sample to c l a s s ) . When you get the pictures, please be careful with them, dp not wrinkle them or write on them. You can use f e l t s , pencil crayons, whatever you want. But please do a good job. I'm going to pass them out now. Mr. Leung, would you help me pass these out?" Pass out pictures. "For your assistance, we are able to pay you each 50 cents. The bank gave me nickels (show nickel r o l l to class) and you should check to see that you have 10 nickels when you get yours. It i s your money. You have earned i t by helping us color these 167 pictures. You can buy candies or do whatever you want with i t . Mr. Leung, would you help me pass out the nickels?" Pass out the r o l l s of ni c k e l s . "You can start coloring now, but I won't c o l l e c t the pictures u n t i l next Monday, so you have a lot of time to do i t . Are there any questions?" Walk around to check their work while they are coloring. After about eight minutes of coloring, say: "Children, I have to be on my way. Remember, do a good job in your col o r i n g . Thank you very much for your help." Leave cl a s s . Experimenter B: After Experimenter A l e f t , say: "Children, may I have your attention please. The coloring probably w i l l take a while to f i n i s h . Since I don't have much time to be with you and since Mrs. Mac would be c o l l e c t i n g the pictures on Monday, would you please put them aside for just a l i t t l e while so that I can f i n i s h my project with you? "This, the last part of my project, i s concerned with old people. By old people, I mean those who are at least 70 years old, l i k e the ones in t h i s picture (show group picture to c l a s s ) . Can you a l l see i t ? I ' l l put i t here so that you can see i t . (put picture in the front of the room). What I would l i k e to find out is how school children f e e l about old people. Also, I want to find out how school children feel about an old person who l i v e s in my neighborhood. This elderly person i s Mr. Brown, and I have brought along a picture of him to show you (show single-man picture to c l a s s ) . This is Mr. Brown. He l i v e s in my 168 neighborhood. Can you a l l see him? I ' l l put the picture here, (put picture next to the one shown e a r l i e r ) . "What I would l i k e you to do i s read a story about old people and about Mr. Brown very c a r e f u l l y and then show me how you feel about the story by answering some questions. The story, the questions, and the answers are a l l in this booklet (show booklet to c l a s s ) . I w i l l pass out these booklets in just a minute. "Please don't write your name down since I don't need to know who answers what. A l l I need to know i s how di f f e r e n t children f e e l about the story. " A l l you have to do i s read the story very c a r e f u l l y and then answer the questions by drawing a l i n e under the answer that shows how you f e e l . "Remember, di f f e r e n t people may have d i f f e r e n t feelings about the same thing, so, please answer the questions completely on your own without looking at another person's answers. "Is t h i s clear? Are there any questions? "Please answer a l l the questions and be very careful with your answers. You cannot change your answers later when I say stop. "You may begin as soon as you get the booklet. When you f i n i s h , please put your booklet upside down l i k e this (show class) and then you may continue with your coloring. Are there any questions?" Pass out booklets. When everybody i s finished, say: "Children, I am going to pass out the envelopes now. I_f you fe e l l i k e giving money to help Mr. Brown , please put your money 169 into the envelope. I_f you don't f e e l l i k e giving money to him, then you don't have to put any thing into the envelope. Remember, you cannot change your answers now (pass out envelopes)." After they have put their money i n , say: "Children, I have to match the story you just read with the one you read e a r l i e r , so would you please write your name at the top of the back of your story, over here (show class) and then put the story into the envelope." Collect envelopes. Then say: "Children, there is just one la s t thing I want to ask of you. The story that you just read i s kind of c o n f i d e n t i a l . Please do not talk to one another or to the other children in the school. Would you be able to do that? Thank you very much for your help." Leave cl a s s . 170 Appendix K Summary Table for 2x2x2x2 (Induction x Deservingness x Attractiveness x Gender) MANCOVA Analysis M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s * Univariate A n a l y s i s * * Mean Squares F-Ratio p-Value Source F Story PDona, ADona. Story PDona. ADona. Story PDona. ADona. A (Induct.) 1. 11 0.35 5. 06 17. 15 9. 44 2. 50 0.05 0. 03 0.12 0.83 0.87 B (Deserv.) 0. 78 0.51 1. 87 394. 44 85. 42 0. 93 1.13 0. ,25 0.34 0.29 0.62 C (Attrac.) 1. 50 0.22 2. 04 1394. 96 701. 97 1. 01 4.00 2. ,05 0.32 0.05 0.15 D (Gender) 2. 14 0.10 7. 81 1190. 22 459. 50 3. 86 3.42 1. ,34 0.05 0.07 0.25 AB 0. 70 0.55 0. 00 327. 34 30. 56 0. 00 0.94 0. ,09 0.99 0.33 0.77 AC 0. 43 0.73 2. 29 72. 83 20. 71 1. 13 0.21 0, ,06 0.29 0.65 0.81 AD 0. 95 0.42 0. 99 995. 43 778. 42 0. 49 2.86 2. ,27 0.49 0.09 0.13 BC 0. 28 0.84 0. 90 0. 13 21. 14 0. 44 0.00 0. ,06 0.51 0.99 0.80 BD 0. 72 0.54 0. 00 74. 07 406. 07 0. 00 0.21 1. ,18 0.99 0.65 0.28 CD 1. 61 0.19 6. 52 1. 41 .186. 27 3. 22 0.00 0. 54 0.07 0.95 0.46 ABC 0. 69 0. 56 1. 54 0. 27 84. 38 0. 76 0.00 0. 25 0.39 0.98 0.62 ABD 0. 54 0.66 0. 35 542. 65 510. 95 0. 17 1.56 1. ,49 0.68 0.21 0.22 ACD 0. 34 0.80 0. 43 37. 54 192. 82 0. 21 0.11 0. ,56 0.65 0.74 0.45 BCD 1. 10 0.35 1. 90 92. 59 544. 51 0. 94 0.27 1. ,59 0.33 0.61 0.21 ABCD 1. 17 0.32 1. 21 465. 55 630. 41 0. 60 1.34 1. 84 0.44 0.25 0.18 Residuals 2. 02 348. 36 343. 16 *Degree of freedom i s 3 and 176 i n a l l cases. **Degree of freedom i s 1 and 178 i n a l l cases. 171 Table 1 Subjects' Responses to Questions 1 and 2 as a Function of 16 Induction x Deservingness x Attractiveness x Gender Conditions Questions 1 and 2 Induction Deserving. A t t r a c t . Gender Never Rarely Sometimes Always High Low High High Boys 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 10 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 12 Low Boys 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 ' 11 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 12 Low High Boys 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 10 Low Boys 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 7 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 3 1 13 15 High High Boys 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 5 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 2 4 14 12 Low Boys 0 0 0 0 4 5 11 10 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 9 Low High Boys 2 2 0 0 0 2 9 7 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 11 Low Boys 0 0 0 0 3 4 10 9 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 2 2 0 0 24 32 169 161 Responses to Question 1 on left-hand column; Responses to Question 2 on right-hand column. Table 2 Subjects' Responses to Questions 3 and 4 as a Function of 16 Induction x Deservingness x A t t r a c t i v e n e s s x Gender Conditions Questions 3 and 4  Induction Deserving. A t t r a c t . Gender No Not Sure Yes High High Boys 0 0 .1 1 10 10 G i r l s 0 0 4 0 9 13 Low Boys 10 8 2 4 0 0 G i r l s 10 5 3 7 0 1 Low High Boys o' .0 2 0 10 12 G i r l s 0 0 5 0 7 12 Low Boys 7 6 2 3 0 0 G i r l s 11 9 4 6 1 1 High High Boys 0 0 4 2 4 6 G i r l s 0 0 5 4 11 12 Low Boys 10 10 5 5 0 0 G i r l s 7 7 3 3 0 0 Low High Boys 0 •1 6 0 5 10 G i r l s 0 0 0 0 14 14 Low Boys 12 7 1 6 0 0 G i r l s 7 6 3 4 0 0 74 59 50 45 71 91 Responses to Question 3 on left-hand column; Responses to Question 4 on right-hand column. Table 3 Subjects' Responses to Questions 3 and 4 as a a Function of 2 Attr a c t i v e n e s s Conditions b c Questions 3 and 4 . Marginal Attractiveness No Not Sure Yes T o t a l High 0 1 27 7 70 89 97 .00 .01 .28 .07 .72 . 92 Low 74 58 23 38 1 2 98 .76 .59 .23 .39 .01 . 02 74 59 50 45 71 91 195 .38 .30 .26 .23 .36 . 47 Second l i n e of entry i s proportion. b 2 Left-hand column, L i k e l i h o o d r a t i o X =153.54, df=2, p<0.001. CRight-hand column, L i k e l i h o o d r a t i o x =171.16, df=2, p<0.001. Table 4 Subjects' Responses to Questions 5, 6 and 7 as a Function of 16 Induction x Deservingness x Attractiveness x Gender Conditions Question 5 Induction Deserving. A t t r a c t . Gender Purchase G i f t High High High Boys 11 G i r l s 13 Low Boys 12 G i r l s 13 Low High Boys 1 G i r l s 1 Low Boys 0 G i r l s 1 Low High High Boys 8 G i r l s 15 Low Hoya 14 G i r l s 10 Low High Boys 1 G i r l s 1 Low Boys 0 G i r l s __0 101 Question 6 Question 7 E l e c t r i c i a n Mr. Brown No Not Sure Yes 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 2 11 11 0 0 9 13 3 0 1 0 4 7 11 11 6 1 6 11 0 0 5 10 9 15 8 13 4 8 1 1 8 13 0 3 0 0 0 1 8 15 1 0 10 10 5 0 1 0 10 13 4 5 7 6 13 10 94 107 11 _9 88 7 _6 31 4 _4 76 2 _0 88 Table 5 Subjects' Responses to Questions 5 and 6 as a Function of 2 Deservingness Conditions Question 5 Marginal Deservingness Purchase G i f t Total High 96 2 98 .98 .02 Low 5 92 97 .05 .95 101 94 195 .52 .48 ,c Question 6 Marginal Deservingness E l e c t r i c i a n Mr. Brown Tot a l High 84 .86 14 14 98 Low 23 .24 107 .55 74 .76 88 .45 97 195 Second l i n e of entry i s proportion. V* 9 Likelihood r a t i o x =185.79, df= l , p <0.001. c 2 Likelihood r a t i o x =75.89, df=1, p<0.001. Table 6 Subjects' Responses to Question 7 as a Function of 2 Deservingness, 2 Attractiveness, and 4 Deservingness x Attractiveness Conditions Deservingness No Question 7 Not Sure Yes High 2 .02 28 .29 68 ,69 98 L o w 29 ,30 31 ,16 48 .50 76 .39 20 .21 88 .45 97 195 Attractiveness High 5 .05 31 .32 61 63 97 Low 26 .27 31 .16 45 .46 76 .39 27 .28 88 .45 98 195 Deservingness x Attractiveness High Low High Low High Low 0 .00 2 .04 5 .10 24 .50 31 .16 3 .06 25 .50 28 .57 20 .42 76 .39 45 .94 23 .46 16 .33 4 .08 88 .45 48 50 49 48 195 Second l i n e of entry is proportion. 'Likelihood ratio x*=60.52, df=2, 0.001. l i k e l i h o o d ratio _xl =36. 80, df=2 , _p < 0. 001. l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o x?=7.79, df=2, p<.0.02. 177 1 Table 7 a Dependence/Independence among Process Measures (Manipulation Check Questions) 1 77.52 2.58 2.17 2.00 0.15 5.78 9 6 6 3 3 6 0.001 0.86 0.90 0.57 0.99 0.45 4.50 0.48 1.63 0.09 6.60 6 6 3 3 6 0.61 1.00 0.65 0.99 0.36 180.79 0, 47 1.85 25.44 4 2 2 4 0.001 0.79 0.40 0.001 0.85 0.84 28.49 2 2 4 0.65 0.66 0.001 88.77 63.22 1 2 0.001 0.001 56. 89 2 0.001 a 2 F i r s t l i n e of entry i s l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o ; second l i n e of entry i s degree of freedom; t h i r d l i n e of entry i s p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . 178 Table 8 Dependence/Independence between Questions 3 and 4 and Question 7 a b Questions 3 and 4 Marginal Question 7 No C Not Sure Yes T o t a l No 19 18 .61 .58 Not Sure 35 27 .46 .36 Yes 20 14 .23 .16 74 59 .38 .30 8 9 .26 .29 21 16 .28 .21 21 20 .24 .23 50 45 .26 .23 4 4 .13 .13 20 33 .26 .43 47 54 .53 .61 71 91 .36 .47 31 31 .16 .16 76 76 .39 .39 88 88 .45 .45 195 195 Left-hand column, L i k e l i h o o d r a t i o x =25.44, df=4, p-; 0.001. i 2 Right-hand column, L i k e l i h o o d r a t i o x =28.49, df=4, £ < 0.001. Second l i n e of entry i s proportion. Table 9 179 Cell Means of 3 Outcome Measures and 11 Covariate Measures of N=195 Subjects a b Independent Variables Dependent Measures ' Covariates Induct. Deserv. Attract. N° Story PDona. ADona. Reading Covl Cov2 Cov3 Cov4 Cov5 Cov6 Cov7 Cov8 Cov9 CovlO High High High 24 2.17 27.50 23.96 41.92 2.12 3.33 2.87 3.08 2.96 2.88 2.83 2.83 1.04 1.50 2.11 26.16 22.51 Low 25 2.20 23.60 20.24 39.48 2.48 3.60 2.64 3.36 2.92 2.76 2.80 2.76 1.24 1.44 2.24 24.02 20.92 High 24 2.04 22.50 22.08 40.25 2.25 3.46 2.96 3.33 2.88 2.83 2.83 2.88 1.50 1.58 2.00 21.24 20.74 Low Low 25 2.08 19.00 19.60 39.76 2.20 3.36 3.00 2.88 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.76 1.08 1.24 1.99 19.39 19.38 Low High High 24 2.38 27.29 24.79 41.79 2.46 3.63 3.04 3.46 2.83 2.92 2.83 2.83 1.33 1.50 2.24 25.57 23.47 Low 25 1.40 17.80 19.00 42.20 2.68 3.64 2.52 3.32 2.80 2.72 2.72 2.72 0.88 1.28 1.53 19.30 20.98 High 25 1.64 24.40 23.00 39.60 2.36 3.32 2.48 2.88 2.92 2.84 2.84 2.84 1.16 1.36 1.63 24.97 23.56 23 1.52 18.04 16.96 42.04 2.35 3.35 2.43 3.00 2.87 2.70 2.83 2.83 0.91 1.35 1.69 19.49 18.07 Low Low Mean Square Error 2.10 357.93 359.71 2.01 350.33 351.23 " Bartlett-Box tests of homogeneity of variance were performed on the three dependent measures and the results showed that the eight within-cell variances can be regarded as homogeneous: _F' s(7,187)=0.38, 0.59, 0.87, £i<0.92, 0.78, 0.54, respectively, for pledged stories, pledged donations (PDona.), and actual donations (Adoaa.). b Second lin e of entry adjusted for effects of 11 covariates. c Of the 198 children who participated in this study, two grade six boys and one grade six g i r l did not respond to question 9 in the story (giving no response as to how much they would pledge to donate). They were thus removed, leaving 195 subjects (grade 5: 52 boys and 52 g i r l s ; grade 6: 39 boys and 52 girls) for the purpose of data analysis. Table 10 C e l l Means of 3 Outcome Measures and 1 Covariate Measure of N=195 Subjects 180 Independent Va r i a b l e s Dependent Measures a ,b Induct. Deserv. A t t r a c t . Gender N Story PDona. ADona. Cov. High High High Boys G i r l s Low Boys Low High Boys Low G i r l s Low High High Boys G i r l s Low Boys G i r l s Low High Boys G i r l s Low Boys G i r l s 11 13 12 G i r l s 13 12 G i r l s 12 Boys 16 16 15 10 11 14 13 10 1.64 1.61 2.62 2.56 2.25 2.38 2.15 2.08 1.92 1.93 2.17 2.03 1.78 1.82 2.25 2.11 1.75 1.68 2.69 2.60 1.40 1.49 1.40 1.41 0.91 1.12 2.21 2.16 1.39 1.52 1.70 1.71 25.91 25.69 28.85 28.37 18.75 19.91 28.08 27.41 23.33 23.48 21.67 20.40 21.11 21.53 17.81 16.54 18.13 17.46 31.88 31.06 16.67 17.47 19.50 19.57 18.18 20.18 29.29 28.80 10.77 11.98 27.50 27.57 20.91 20.58 26.54 25.83 15.92 17.65 24.23 23.24 24.58 24.81 19.58 17.69 22.78 23.40 17.81 15.92 11.88 10.89 31.25 30.03 20.00 21.19 17.50 17.60 18.18 21.16 26.79 26.06 11.54 13.34 24.00 24.10 2.82 2.92 2.25 3.00 2.67 3.25 2.56 3.25 3.00 3.06 2.40 2.70 1.91 2.93 2.23 2.70 o c r 0 0 oo II rt ro ro r-1 3 * ro o O • ro o o 1—' 3 3 3 U> H o CL to •# ro rt . w ro M —' o c H- . i — 1 o 3 rr fD to tn 3 r-3 O a. cn to Hi o 3 " c r to . o ro o Ln K ro 3 rt -J ro rr C >. i-i to n. t _ i . c cn rt ro a. o l-l t - h ro o D. cn o 3 to o rt • K - O J o r-o 3 » to td to rr I w o X ro cn rr cn rr o a~ r-n to rr 3 3 " O ro era ro !—' 3 a-* ro o H-• S rr O 00 O » 3 " O 3 H- i-r to O 3 • • I < v i f l fi (1 rt • o fD I-I cn II H* to O 3 i-h ID < o cn to fD O 1 3 H o fD H-<! o to ro to rt 3 I-I ri o fD H" < ro to ro cn T3 rt h-1 fD ro o rtl an for O c r 3 i-i ro ed •a H i- 1 ro o ro 00 3 a. to TO rt ro 3 * a. ed ro CO rr rt to 3 * o cn H i-i ro 3 " fD ro o cn 3 ** o 00 ep TD ro fD M 3 3 fD fD a o ro 00 C 3 ft) cn rt p. 3 ro o — to 3 cn cn to —s c rt r-1 r| H- Cn fD o V cn 3 cn 179) and Mean Square Err o r 2.07 351.17 351.85 2.02 348.36 343.16 181 Table 11 P r i n c i p a l Component Analysis Variables Story P r i n c i p a l Components Corr e l a t i o n s between O r i g i n a l Measures and P r i n c i p a l Components 1 2 3 - 0 . 5 0 0 . 0 1 1 . 3 3 - 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 9 4 Varimax Components 0 . 9 8 - 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 3 Pledged donations - 1 8 . 0 2 - 4 . 8 6 - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 9 6 - 0 . 2 6 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 6 - 0 . 8 6 0 . 4 8 Actual donations - 1 7 . 8 6 4 . 9 0 - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 9 6 0 . 2 6 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 6 - 0 . 4 9 0 . 8 6 Percent of v a r i a t i o n 9 2 . 8 8 6 . 8 6 0 . 2 6 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095525/manifest

Comment

Related Items