UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Effects of models of perceived similarity on two types of altruistic behavior in fifth grade children Hops, Zona Joyce 1969

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A2 H66.pdf [ 3.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104233.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104233-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104233-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104233-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104233-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104233-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104233-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104233-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104233.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF MODELS OF PERCEIVED SIMILARITY ON TWO TYPES OF ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR IN FIFTH GRADE CHILDREN by ZONA JOYCE HOPS B . A . , Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1956 M.Ed . , Un ivers i ty of Toronto, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Education i n Guidance and Counsel l ing We accept th is thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September- 1969 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d S t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s , i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f Education (Guidance and Counselling) The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e September 4, 1969. Chairman: Dr. M.B. Nevison DISSERTATION ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF MODELS OF PERCEIVED SIMILARITY ON TWO TYPES OF ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR IN FIFTH GRADE CHILDREN by Zona Joyce Hops This study examined the e f f e c t of same-sex peer models perceived as s i m i l a r , n e u t r a l , or d i s s i m i l a r on two types of a l t r u i s t i c behavior i n f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n . The dependent var iab le was a l t r u i s t i c responses, opera t iona l ly def ined as penny donations and volunteer ing of serv ice time to work on a char i tab le p r o j e c t . A two-factor design was employed for each experiment i n which the three treatment condi t ions: mode l -s imi la r , model -neutra l , m o d e l - d i s s i m i l a r , and the no-model cont ro l group were nested wi th in the sex f a c t o r . A t o t a l sample of 320 subjects for both experiments was drawn from s ix pub l ic elementary schools i n North Burnaby. The research questions for the two experiments were: 1. Does the presence of a model e l i c i t more don-at ions of money and serv ice time for char i tab le purposes i n f i f t h grade ch i ld ren than no model? 2. Does the s i m i l a r i t y shared between the observer and model a f f e c t the donations of money and serv ice time for char i tab le purposes? 3. Are there any sex d i f ferences i n donating money and serv ice time for char i tab le purposes? Each subject was interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y by an exper i -menter who attempted to manipulate through a verbal d e s c r i p -t i o n the perceptions of a peer-model. Fol lowing a b r i e f i n t r o -duction the subject observed the model play a marble game through which rewards of pennies or f ive-minute time tokens were dispensed on a pre-determined schedule. The subject then played a game alone and received e i ther money or time tokens which could be contr ibuted by dropping them in to a donation can before leaving the experimental room. The no-model con-t r o l group played the game alone fol lowing i n i t i a l ins t ruc t ions from the experimenter. The data was analyzed by an ANOVA and orthogonal com-parisons of the means of the d i f f e r e n t treatment groups. As hypothesized, a same-sex peer model was more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g a l t r u i s t i c responses than no model. The greater the r e a l or assumed s i m i l a r i t y between the observer and model the more e f f e c t i v e the model was in e l i c i t i n g penny and serv ice donat ions. The presence of a model perceived as s i m i l a r was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g money donations i v and serv ice time than a model perceived as d i s s i m i l a r . No sex d i f fe rences were found in the donations of money or time to work on a char i tab le p ro jec t . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE RROBLEM 7 Model C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 7 A l t r u i s t i c Behavior 14 Statement of the Problem 25 III. METHOD 2 8 Experimental Design 2 8 Treatment of Data 29 Subjects and Models 29 Apparatus and Mater ia ls 30 Procedure 32 IV. RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS I AND II 34 V. DISCUSSION 45 L imi ta t ions of these Studies 52 Suggestions for Further Research. . . . . 53 REFERENCES 55 Appendix A: P r i n c i p a l s ' Le t te r to Parents 60 Appendix B: Pre-Experimental Quest ionnaire. 61 Appendix C: Instruct ions Given to Each Subgect in a l l Groups 62 v i PAGE Appendix D: Raw Data f o r 80 Boys i n Experiment I (Monetary Donations) 69 Appendix E: Raw Data f o r 80 G i r l s i n Experiment I (Monetary Donations) 70 Appendix F: Raw Data f o r 80 Boys i n Experiment I I (Service Time) 71 Appendix G: Raw Data f o r 80 G i r l s i n Experiment I I (Se r v i c e Time) 72 I v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Summary of Percentages and Total Number Responding Yes, No, and Undecided to S i m i l a r i t y Question within each Experimental Condition . . 36 2. Means of Penny and Token Donations for Boys and G i r l s i n the Three Perceived Simi-l a r i t y Conditions and the No-model Control . 37 3. Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Penny Contributions for a l l Groups 39 4. Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Token Contributions for a l l Groups 40 5. Summary of Analysis of Treatment Effects i n Terms of Penny Donations 41 6. Summary of Analysis of Treatment Effects i n Terms of Token Donations. . 42 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Mean Penny Donations for the Three Model S i m i l a r i t y Condit ions and No-model Control 38 2. Mean Token Donations for the Three Model S i m i l a r i t y Condit ions and No-model Control 38 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my grat i tude to the fo l lowing persons for t h e i r cooperation and assistance with th is study. Dr. M.B. Nevison who served as advisor for the thes is and provided endless patience and support. I a lso wish to thank Drs. K.D. C r a i g , J . D . F r i e s e n , S . S . Lee, and A . J . More for serving on the committee. School D i s t r i c t No. 41 (Burnaby) and Mr. H. McPherson for provid ing a se t t ing for the study and the fo l lowing p r i n -c i p a l s who so w i l l i n g l y p a r t i c i p a t e d : Mr. D . J . Atkinson -Parkcrest School ; Mr. J . G . Brewster- Sper l ing School ; Mr. J . G . Edwards - C a p i t o l H i l l School ; Mr. J.W. Gilmore - Aubrey School ; Mr. N. Holob - Nelson School ; Mr. A.W. Horton - Rosser School ; and Mr. J . A . Taylor - Lockdale School . To my a s s i s t a n t , Margaret C a r r , who spent many hours pressing buttons and dispensing rewards, Mr. B. Harr is fo r h is creat ive construct ion of the apparatus/ and V a l e r i e Lawless and David Oshoway who acted as models. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l to my husband, Hyman, for h is encouragement and guidance throughout the course of the study. Z . J . H . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The word a l t ru ism was adapted from L a t i n by Auguste Comte i n h is r e l i g i o u s wr i t ings to describe the epitome of v i r tue (Budd, 1956). Numerous in terpre ta t ions of the con-cept gradual ly spread throughout Western Europe and America where reform groups and cooperatives dedicated to the p r i n -c i p l e of mutual sharing for the ult imate happiness of mankind f lour ished for b r i e f per iods . In the ear ly twentieth century, wr i ters such as Dewey and Tufts (190 8) were s k e p t i -c a l about the inherent dangers of a l t ru ism as they claimed: The mere fac t that p i t y in general tends to conserve the welfare of others does not guarantee the r ightness of g iv ing way to an impulse of p i t y jus t as i t happens to spr ing up. This might mean sentimentalism for the agent, and weakening of the springs of pa t ience , courage, s e l f - h e l p , and s e l f - r e s p e c t in others (p. 386). During the l a s t two decades a l t ru ism has been studied c h i e f l y by s o c i o l o g i s t s operating within somewhat d ichoto-mous o r i e n t a t i o n s . One camp, represented by Sorokin (1954) and Montague (1950), considered a l t ru ism the panacea for the p l i g h t of human s o c i e t y . Sorokin (1954) i l l u s t r a t e d th is tenet i n h is statement: Only the power of unbounded love prac t iced in regard to a l l human beings can defeat the forces of inter-human s t r i f e , and can prevent the pen-ding extermination "of man by man on th is planet (p. v i i i ) . 2 A n t i t h e t i c a l to the doctr ine of sa lva t ion through a l t ru ism was the school of thought which proposed that Machiavel l ian motives were bas ic to a l t r u i s t i c acts (Queen, 1930). This approach received support from Freud's psychoanalyt ic theory which in terpreted acts of goodwil l as being e s s e n t i a l l y s e l f i s h i n nature (Wodehouse, 19 29). Powerful e t h i c a l biases that re la ted to the motives underlying a l t r u i s t i c behavior may have p a r t l y explained the re jec t ion of a l t ru ism as an area for systematic research by behavioral s c i e n t i s t s fo r so many years . Recent t h e o r e t i c a l and empir ica l psycholog ica l wr i t -i n g s , however, have ind icated an increased i n t e r e s t i n understanding the o r i g i n and i d e n t i f y i n g condit ions conducive to the a c q u i s i t i o n and e l i c i t a t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c behavior. Some of th is a t tent ion may have been sparked by inc idents where ind iv idua ls have endangered the i r l i v e s to a s s i s t others for no apparent reward (Wallace, 1956). At the oppo-s i t e end of the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y continuum, however, there i s evidence of an apparent apathy and ind i f fe rence t o -ward another i n desperation (Rosenthal, 1964). S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have examined a l t r u i s t i c behavior i n laboratory studies and i n n a t u r a l i s t i c set t ings (Aronfreed & Paska l , 1965; Bryan & T e s t , 1967; Hornste in , F isch & Holmes, 1968; Rosenhan & White, 1967). The appeals for mone-tary donations to char i tab le organ iza t ions , dest i tu te 3 i n d i v i d u a l s , fami l ies and communities; the increas ing p lea for volunteer workers to help people in need; or the numer-ous opportuni t ies that we recognize i n our d a i l y l i v e s to contr ibute some of our t ime, e f f o r t or money to help our neighbors have provided stimulus s i tua t ions for the e l i c i -t a t ion of a l t r u i s t i c responses. The increased s o l i c i t a t i o n for s e r v i c e , even i n chi ldhood, provides a broad research f i e l d with l i t t l e examination to date. Ear ly studies have concentrated mainly on i n v e s t i -gat ing the moral judgment of ch i ld ren through the use of quest ionnaires and interviews (Piaget, 1932; Murphy, 1947). These techniques, however, have not provided evidence r e -garding the degree of assoc ia t ion between the cogni t ive processes operating i n hypothet ica l s i tua t ions and actual behavior i n r e a l s e t t i n g s . Hartshorne, May, and Mai ler (1929) claimed that behavior i s a funct ion of the s p e c i f i c factors operating wi th in a given s i t u a t i o n and a c h i l d ' s prev ious ly learned response pat te rns . Grinder (1964) assessed the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between age, actual r e s i s -tance to temptation, and moral judgments i n middle c h i l d -hood. He reported that s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l determinants, such as "the presence of h ighly coveted forbidden incen-t ives (p. 890)," may e l i c i t responses counter to expressed moral judgments. He a lso claimed that a c h i l d ' s "compliance with s o c i a l standards. . . occurs as a funct ion of s o c i a l 4 learning experiences (p. 890)" where behavioral patterns are estab l ished through reinforcement cont ingencies. On the assumption, then, that cogni t ive awareness of standards of conduct does not permit accurate pred ic t ions of behavior i n a l l s i tua t ions there i s a need to explore add i t iona l areas of s o c i a l i z a t i o n which may inf luence a c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n and performance of a l t r u i s t i c behaviors. The e f f i c a c y of modeling procedures has been demonstrated i n learning novel response patterns as wel l as providing a stimulus to e l i c i t prev iously learned behaviors (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Many s o c i a l responses are learned by ch i ld ren as a r e s u l t of the observations of parents , s i b l i n g s and peers; however, there appeared to be a pauci ty of l i t e r -ature in the area of a l t r u i s t i c behavior using observat ional learning as a t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . The theory of observat ional learning proposed by Bandura (1962, 1965, 1969) and Bandura and Walters (1963) ind icated that exposure to a model's behavior may have a f a c i l i t a t i v e or i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t for prev iously learned responses i n an observer 's behavioral r e p e r t o i r e . The e l i -c i t a t i o n of a s i m i l a r c lass of s o c i a l response patterns i s a funct ion of the d iscr imina t ive cues provided by a model's behavior . A complex of var iab les seems to operate wi th in any given stimulus s i t u a t i o n to inf luence the degree of acqu i -s i t i o n and performance of matching responses. Charac te r i s t i cs 5 of the model, an observer 's mot ivat ional s e t , the type of behavior demonstrated and i t s consequences for the model are important s i t u a t i o n a l components. These determinants i n -f luence the extent to which observers attend to modeling s t i m u l i , r e ta in and l a t e r reproduce i d e n t i c a l or s i m i l a r response sequences. The ro le of the model i s to provide information about courses of act ion and the consequences of that behavior . A l t r u i s t i c responses are def ined as a donor's behav-i o r a l choice to a id a needy r e c i p i e n t which incurs some degree of s e l f - s a c r i f i c e with no apparent persona l , mater ia l or s o c i a l ga in . In studies of a l t ru ism the funct ion of a model was to define a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n in terms of appro-pr ia te behavioral responses, or perhaps provide a set of s a l i e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s , and to e s t a b l i s h some normative s tan-dard. The stimulus propert ies of the model acted as impor-tant var iab les i n in f luenc ing an observer 's a t tent ion to the re levant modeling s t i m u l i , a f fec t ing the retent ion of modeled s o c i a l norms and f i n a l l y the reproduction of matching' a l t r u i s t i c responses. The present study was designed to examine the e f f e c t of a model i n an observat ional learning s i t u a t i o n as wel l as the e f f e c t of the s i m i l a r i t y of the model, as perceived by observers , on the performance of a l t r u i s t i c responses. If ch i ld ren modeled behaviors of others whom they perceived as 6 s i m i l a r , p a r t l y b e c a u s e t h e y a t t e n d e d t o a n d r e t a i n e d m o r e m o d e l i n g c u e s , t h e n a n e x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n o f p e r -c e p t i o n s t o b u i l d i n a s i m i l a r i t y c o n d i t i o n s h o u l d e l i c i t m o r e m a t c h i n g r e s p o n s e s . C o n v e r s e l y , i f a c h i l d p e r c e i v e d a m o d e l a s d i s s i m i l a r l e s s a t t e n t i o n w o u l d b e f o c u s e d u p o n m o d e l i n g s t i m u l i a n d t h e f r e q u e n c y o f m o d e l i n g r e s p o n s e s w o u l d b e m i n i m i z e d . A n e u t r a l c o n d i t i o n , h o w e v e r , w h e r e n o a t t e m p t w a s m a d e t o e x p e r i m e n t a l l y m a n i p u l a t e p e r c e p t i o n s o t h e r t h a n p r o v i d i n g a m o d e l t o s u p p l y i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t s o c i a l n o r m s m a y b e s u f f i c i e n t t o e l i c i t a p p r o p r i a t e m o d e l i n g r e s p o n s e s . CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM I. MODEL CHARACTERISTICS The provision of s o c i a l models i s an important means of transmitting and modifying behavior i n many situa t i o n s . Through the observation of appropriate s o c i a l agents the learning process can be accelerated. The perceived s i m i l a r -i t y of the model as one of the major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , appears to be an important variable which may concomitantly a f f e c t the degree to which matching responses are reproduced. Studies have reported model c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as age, sex, and status as determinants of subsequent imitative behavior. In dealing with a s i m i l a r i t y dimension as a variable i t was important to examine the function of these stimulus proper-t i e s i n influencing a child's perception of a model. As age increases a c h i l d becomes more interested i n and influenced by members of the peer group. The presence of a peer model, p a r t i c u l a r l y one of the same-sex, could be more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g some s o c i a l responses than an adult model. Harris and Tseng (1957) u t i l i z i n g an open ended sentence technique, studied the changes i n attitudes between the sexes from grades three through twelve. Their 8 results indicated that elementary school boys and g i r l s held highly po s i t i v e attitudes toward members of t h e i r own peer group. In a subsequent study, Reese ( 1 9 6 2 ) using a socio-metric measure i n which f i f t h grade children rated t h e i r peers on a five-point scale provided confirmation for same-sex preferences i n eleven-year-olds. A comparison of the effects of adult and peer models i n the evocation and retention of aggressive responses was made by Hicks ( 1 9 6 5 ) . He assigned six t y preschool children to one of f i v e experimental conditions: adult-male model, adult-female model, male-peer model, female-peer model, and no-model controls. Following exposure to a f i l m depicting a variety of novel verbally and p h y s i c a l l y aggressive acts toward toys, the immediate post-test results indicated that a l l model conditions e l i c i t e d more aggressive responses i n both sexes but the male-peer model was the most e f f e c t i v e . A post-test, using the i d e n t i c a l test s t i m u l i , was conducted afte r a six month i n t e r v a l . Although s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r -ences were found between the immediate and delayed perfor-mance tests the degree of retention of observed aggression remained high with the adult male model being the most i n -f l u e n t i a l for both sexes. Two studies by Bandura, Ross, and Ross ( 1 9 6 1 , 1 9 6 3 ) i n which they manipulated the s^x-of-model and sex-of-subject variable and assessed t h e i r influence on aggressive behavior 9 i n nursery school ch i ld ren ind icated that boys exposed to an adult male model d isplayed more verbal and phys ica l i m i -t a t i ve responses than those exposed to an adult female model. Boys observing an aggressive female model more f r e -quently re f ra ined from exh ib i t ing overt aggressive responses which the researchers a t t r ibuted to "pr ior learning about what i s sex appropriate behavior (p. 581)." G i r l s exposed to the female model imitated verbal aggression but f a i l e d to reproduce i d e n t i c a l p h y s i c a l responses. These researchers d id not attempt to vary the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the models and therefore, t h e i r data was in terpreted i n terms o f .appro -pr ia te masculine-feminine ro le behaviors. Comparable f indings were reported by Hartup (1964) using a structured d o l l play interview to tes t M i l l e r and D o l l a r d ' s (1941) conclusion that " . . . im i ta t ion of a given response . . . learned in one s i t u a t i o n . . . w i l l general ize to new somewhat s i m i l a r s i tua t ions (p. 131)." During a two session interview nursery school ch i ld ren were t o l d a var ie ty of incomplete s t o r i e s each with a two-choice s o l u t i o n . The experimenter pointed to the appropriate d o l l models ( father , mother, e g o - d o l l , same-sex f r i e n d , opposite-sex fr iend) associated with the story as i t progressed. Imitat ive behavior was opera t iona l ly def ined as the sub jec t 's r e p l i c a -t i o n , using an e g o - d o l l , of one of the d o l l model's s o l u t i o n s . The data revealed a tendency to s e l e c t l i k e - s e x models, 10 p a r t i c u l a r l y fo r boys, and the behavior general ized across s i tua t ions more than with opposite-sex i m i t a t i o n . Bandura (1969) def ined i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as "a process i n which a person patterns h is thoughts, f e e l i n g s , or act ions a f te r another person who serves as a model (p. 214)." The existence of behaviora l s i m i l a r i t i e s between a c h i l d and others i n h is environment has been a t t r ibuted to modeling processes. Antecedents of behavioral events ( i . e . , matching responses fo l lowing exposure to modeling st imul i ) may be e i ther r e a l and/or assumed s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s . S o c i a l comparison theory (Fest inger , 1954) postulated that persons tended to evaluate the i r opinions and a b i l i t i e s through the process of comparison with some reference model. The s e l e c t i o n of models moved i n the d i r e c t i o n of actual or perceived s i m i l a r i t i e s between the subject and reference group by r e j e c t i n g persons who appeared to have a t t r ibutes too divergent i n nature from those of the subject . There are a lso a few studies which demonstrated the e f f e c t of perceived s i m i l a r i t i e s between a model and observer on subsequent responses. S to t land , Zander, and Natsoulas (1961) postulated that the percept ion of s i m i l a r i t y on one or more given c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , re fer red to as " f i r s t s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s , " predisposed a genera l i za t ion of s i m i l a r i t i e s to add i t iona l a t t r i b u t e s , c a l l e d "derived s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s . " The greater the number of perceived a t t r ibutes in common the 11 greater the tendency to develop more der ived s i m i l a r a t t r i -butes with the model. An experiment designed to tes t the i r hypothesis required seventy col lege women to state t h e i r preferences for simple musical passages, v i s u a l l y presented nonsense s y l l a b l e s , and g i r l s ' names. In the f i n a l phase of the experiment the subjects were requested to wri te a personal ly d e s c r i p t i v e paragraph and paragraphs about each of two a u d i t o r i l y presented models. The resu l ts confirmed the thes is that persons who were aware of s i m i l a r i t i e s on cer ta in t r a i t s most f requent ly general ized other s i m i l a r i t i e s even on qui te divergent q u a l i t i e s . A study by Nooney and Polansky (1962) provided a fur ther example of the g e n e r a l i -zat ion of perceived s i m i l a r i t y . They manipulated the s i m i -l a r i t y var iab le and found that agreement on a ser ies of a t t i tude statements induced inferences of cogni t ive s i m i l a r i t y on other a t t r i b u t e s . A study using boys i n the s i x t h , seventh, and eighth grades was conducted by Burnste in , S to t land , and Zander (1961) to test perceived s i m i l a r i t y var iab les of a more personal nature and the subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n of these with a p o s i t i v e or negative model on the degree of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A test of perceived competence on a var ie ty of s k i l l s was administered p r i o r to a deep-sea d i v e r ' s v i s i t . The boys met i n small groups under three main condit ions of s i m i l a r i t y , d i s s i m i l a r -ity,, and no knowledge of the d i v e r ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Following 12 the d i v e r ' s introductory comments per ta in ing to h is know-ledge of s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y to the group, he began the second phase of the experiment i n which he played the ro le of a f i r s t c lass or t h i r d c lass d iver for ha l f the group under each c o n d i t i o n . The r e s u l t s confirmed those of the e a r l i e r study i n which subjects that perceived themselves high i n s i m i l a r i t y pe rs is ted i n th is evaluat ion regardless of the actua l type of model presentat ion . Kagan (1967) d id a study with f i f t y - s i x Radc l i f f e freshmen categorized by judges as being e i ther an academic or a s o c i a l type of person. Each student was p r i v a t e l y interviewed and requested to a s s i s t i n judging the c r e a t i v i t y of o r i g i n a l poems wr i t ten by two s e n i o r s , one i d e n t i f i e d as academic and one as s o c i a l . Some of the poet 's persona l i ty data was provided p r i o r to hearing the tapes and af ter l i s t e n i n g to the poems. Each student was asked to rate the poems on a c r e a t i v i t y s c a l e , quote as much of them as pos-s i b l e , and judge herse l f on a s i m i l a r i t y index to the author. The resu l ts provided strong support for the hypothesis that more a t tent ion i s d i rec ted to those in d iv id u a ls with whom they perceived persona l i ty s i m i l a r i t i e s . Rosekrans (1967) systemat ica l ly manipulated perceived s i m i l a r i t y as a var iab le and the consequences of the model's behavior on preadolescent boys' matching responses. A sample of ninety Boy Scouts was informed by the experimenter, on 13 the basis of data from a Perceived S i m i l a r i t y Tes t , of the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s in in te res ts and a b i l i t i e s between themselves and a p i c t o r i a l model. The task involved learning s t r a t e g i c moves i n a War Game from a f i lmed presen-ta t ion which ended with e i ther p o s i t i v e , negative or no consequences for the model. The f indings ind icated that percept ion of s i m i l a r i t i e s with a model enhanced both the a c q u i s i t i o n and performance of imi ta t ive responses; however, the response consequences appeared to have l i t t l e e f f ec t on imi ta t ive behavior . This f ind ing was a t t r ibuted to fau l ty t iming i n dispensing rewards and punishments. Subjects i n the no-model condi t ion produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer responses which could be c l a s s i f i e d as r e p l i c a t i o n s of the model's game behavior. One study (Grusec & M i s c h e l , 1966) pointed out the importance of an observer 's d i f f e r e n t i a l a t tent ion and co-ver t rehearsal on the a c q u i s i t i o n and performance of a model's behavior , p a r t i c u l a r l y when cer ta in re levant char-a c t e r i s t i c s were made known to the subject before rather than during exposure to the modeling s i t u a t i o n . They found that preschool ch i ld ren who observed adult models exh ib i t ing rewarding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and who were rated high with r e s -pect to future cont ro l of the c h i l d ' s welfare r e c a l l e d be-hav iora l responses on a post tes t with greater frequency than when the model was nonrewarding and had only t rans ient 14 cont ro l over the c h i l d ' s resources. To summarize, the presentat ion of verbal information about the existence of s i m i l a r i t i e s between a subject and model appeared to increase the sub jec t 's a t tent ion to the behavior of the model. Knowledge of s i m i l a r i t i e s a lso pro -vided a basis fo r genera l i za t ion to fur ther actual or assumed s i m i l a r i t i e s . S o c i a l comparison theory postulated that there i s a tendency to re jec t another person's behavior which i s too divergent from one's own, there fore , i t appeared that the c loser the perceived s i m i l a r i t y of a subject and model the greater the p r o b a b i l i t y for imi ta t ive responses to occur . During the middle childhood years when peers acted as strong s o c i a l i z i n g agents and the desi re to i d e n t i f y with the same sex was at a very high l e v e l , i t was conceivable that more matching responses of same-sex peers would occur i n a va r ie ty of behaviora l areas. II. ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR Al t ru ism i s def ined as behavior which incurs some degree of s e l f - s a c r i f i c e for the donor in an e f f o r t to a id another person or persons with no apparent persona l , ma te r i a l , or s o c i a l g a i n . Bryan and Test (1967) have suggested that three s i t u a t i o n a l determinants in f luence a l t r u i s t i c responses: (1) the norm of r e c i p r o c i t y , (2) the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 15 norm, and (3) the presence of a h e l p i n g model. The norm of r e c i p r o c i t y (Gouldner, 1961) s t a t e s t h a t man operates b a s i -c a l l y on an e x p e c t a t i o n p r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t i n g an eventual balance between s o c i a l l o s s e s and b e n e f i t s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Berkowitz and D a n i e l s (1963, 1964) hypothesized t h a t a l t r u -i s t i c a c t s are i n i t i a t e d through the p e r c e p t i o n of a depen-dency r e l a t i o n s h i p which arouses f e e l i n g s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and h e l p i n g behavior on the p a r t of a donor. The o b s e r v a t i o n of a model e x h i b i t i n g s e l f - s a c r i f i c i n g behavior p r o v i d e d a t h i r d determinant f o r evoking h e l p i n g responses (Bryan & T e s t , 1967; Rosenhan & White, 1967). The presence of a model served to d e f i n e the s i t u a t i o n by g i v i n g a demonstration of the a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l norms. A number of v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o a l t r u i s m such as age, s i z e of f a m i l y , and s i t u a t i o n a l determinants have been r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . One of the e a r l i e s t s t u d i e s u s i n g o b j e c t i v e techniques to measure s e l f - s a c r i f i c i n g be-h a v i o r i n f i f t h - t o eighth-grade c h i l d r e n was r e p o r t e d by Hartshorne, May, and M a i l e r (1929). A l t r u i s t i c behavior was r e p o r t e d as a f u n c t i o n of the type of s t i m u l u s , d e f i n e d as the o b j e c t needing help ( h o s p i t a l i z e d c h i l d r e n , a d u l t s , orphans, animals, e t c . ) , and the type of r e s i s t a n c e , the o b j e c t t o be s a c r i f i c e d , or the a c t i v i t y t o be done (money, time, making v i s i t s , e t c . ) . In one experiment orphans were 16 t o l d that each c h i l d would soon receive a g i f t of twenty-f ive cents . A card with three cho ices , s e l f , bank, and c h a r i t y , was provided and every c h i l d was requested to ind ica te per -sonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of the money. The money that ac tua l ly a r r ived (one dime and nine pennies) was less than o r i g i n a l l y promised, therefore cards were again completed for d e s i g -nating a new d i s t r i b u t i o n . The r e s u l t s showed that the pro-por t ion of money a l loca ted to s e l f and bank was n i n e t y - s i x percent with four percent voted to c h a r i t y ; however, there was a twenty-four percent decrease between the amount voted for char i ty and the actua l donat ion. A set of tests was devised to measure various aspects of serv ice tendencies i n terms of cooperation on a c lass p r o j e c t , d i f f e r e n t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of c lass money, w i l l ingness to donate a set of a r t i c l e s , and the voluntary prov is ion of e i ther o r i g i n a l or publ ished puzz les , s t o r i e s , or p i c t u r e s . Their f ind ings ind icated that a small proport ion of ch i ld ren ac tua l ly volunteered the time necessary for work on a purely char i tab le p r o j e c t . Another of the f i r s t attempts to study a l t ru ism i n ch i ld ren was reported by Wright (1942). A sample of t h i r t y -one e i g h t - y e a r - o l d ch i ld ren was used to invest igate three aspects of s e l f - s a c r i f i c i n g responses the wi l l ingness to f o r f e i t a f avor i te toy to a f r i end or stranger; the i n c l i n a -t i o n to d i s t r i b u t e toys between a f r i end and stranger; and 17 the percept ion of how other ch i ld ren might respond given s i m i l a r tasks to perform. More ch i ld ren were w i l l i n g to f o r f e i t and d i s t r i b u t e preferred toys to a stranger than to a f r i e n d s ta t ing most f requent ly that they wanted to a id someone who may not be i n such fortunate circumstances as t h e i r f r i e n d s . Those ch i ld ren sharing with a f r i end were found to be more s e l f i s h themselves. In p red ic t ing the generosity of classmates and strangers ch i ld ren judged others to be a l t r u i s t i c or e g o i s t i c to the same degree as displayed by t h e i r own behavior . Turner (1948) developed a t h i r t y - i t e m Al t ru ism Scale for use with ages nine through s ix teen . It consisted of seven categories of behaviora l observations recorded by i n -formants about a given subject . Some of the areas explored were react ions to s i tua t ions where one i s i n competit ion with oneself or o thers , coping behaviors i n personal ly threatening s i t u a t i o n s , and the a b i l i t y to engage i n conver-sat ion without dominating i t or demanding that i t revolve around onese l f . The conclusion was that a l t r u i s t i c behavior measured by th is method showed no increase with chronologica l age, wi th in s p e c i f i e d age l i m i t s , and that any d i r e c t attempt to develop a l t r u i s t i c behavior by the home, s c h o o l , or church remained r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e . This study, however, d id not cont ro l for the e f f e c t of poss ib le spurious rat ings being given subjects r e l a t i v e to the i r actual behavior. Testimony 18 provided by informants was also susceptible to d i s t o r t i o n s as a r e s u l t of forgetting. Other studies compared the frequency and amount of a l t r u i s t i c behavior i n children of d i f f e r e n t ages and re-ported a developmental increase. Operating within Piaget's theory of moral development, Ugerel-Semin (1952) examined the relationship between age and the development of sharing behavior of children aged four to sixteen. Each c h i l d was presented with an uneven number of nuts (five to seventeen) and requested to divide them between himself and a f r i e n d . The results showed a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between age and generosity, no sex differences, and a tendency for children from lower class families to be more generous that those from the middle or upper classes. Handlon and Gross (1959) i n an investigation of sharing behavior exhibited by preschool and intermediate elementary grade children also found a greater willingness to share pennies with a partner as age increased. The size of family, however, i n t h i s study did not a f f e c t sharing responses. In both of these studies the experimenter was present throughout the entire procedure, and i t i s conceivable that t h i s strongly influenced the child's response, p a r t i c u l a r l y , i n the older children who would more l i k e l y f e e l the neces-s i t y to conform to the expectations of adult standards. 19 Studies that used a model to e l i c i t a l t r u i s t i c r e s -ponses i n ch i ld ren reported fewer age d i f ferences (Midlarsky & Bryan, 1967; Aronfreed & Paska l , 1968). I t i s p o s s i b l e , then, that the modeling s t imu l i tend to cancel out the usual developmental e f f e c t s . No consistent resu l ts have been shown favor ing e i ther boys or g i r l s on measures of a l t ru ism. Rosenhan and White (1967) found that g i r l s donated more g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e s to orphans than boys when a model was present but less than boys i n the absence of the model. The previous studies have been c h i e f l y c o r r e l a t i o n a l and concerned with inves t iga t ing the var iab le of age, sex, and family s ize and t h e i r r e la t ionsh ip to a l t r u i s t i c behavior. Only recent ly have researchers endeavored to experimental ly manipulate some of the antecedent var iab les which may i n f l u -ence helping responses. F ischer (1963) designed an e x p e r i -ment to explore the process of a c q u i s i t i o n of sharing r e s -ponses i n preschool c h i l d r e n . He postulated that generosity i s a learned c h a r a c t e r i s t i c dependent upon the type and amount of reinforcement received contingent upon sharing responses. Twenty-four ch i ld ren were d iv ided in to one of four reinforcement condi t ions who were then given e i ther verbal pra ise or bubble gum contingent upon sharing one of two or one of s ix marbles presented to the c h i l d at the be-ginning of each t r i a l . The a c q u i s i t i o n of sharing behaviors 20 was found to be a funct ion of the re in fo rcers dispensed with concrete rewards being more e f f e c t i v e with young ch i ld ren than verba l p r a i s e . A second f ind ing suggested that fo l low-ing the a c q u i s i t i o n per iod the more concrete items immediately ava i lab le to the c h i l d the greater the p r o b a b i l i t y he would share h is possessions. Aronfreed and Paskal (1965) designed an experimental study to explore the o r i g i n of a l t r u i s t i c responses. G i r l s , aged s ix to e ight yea rs , i n d i v i d u a l l y observed a female ex-perimenter demonstrate the operat ion of a two-lever dev ice . As a consequence of lever pressing e i ther a red l i g h t f lashed on or candy was dispensed according to a.prearranged sched-u l e . During the t r a i n i n g phase for those i n the experimental group the experimenter simply c o l l e c t e d the candy or i f the red l i g h t came on the experimenter smiled broadly at the c h i l d , hugged her and sa id "There's the l i g h t ! " Two cont ro l groups were used; one i n which the sub-jects were exposed only to the experimenter's smiles when the red l i g h t appeared and the other only to the exper i -menter's p h y s i c a l a f f e c t i o n . A tes t session for a l l groups fol lowed i n which the c h i l d manipulated the apparatus alone while the experimenter sat across the room. The red l i g h t was disconnected from the f r o n t , but remained v i s i b l e to the experimenter from the rear of the apparatus. The f i n d -ings showed that ch i ld ren exposed to the combination of 21 expressive signs of pleasure and hugs were more a l t r u i s t i c (produced the red l i g h t more frequently fo r the experimenter than candy for themselves) than ch i ld ren rece iv ing only one of the a f f e c t i v e responses. The resu l ts were in te rp re -ted to support the theory that a l t r u i s t i c acts are performed because of the expectat ion of b e n e f i c i a l consequences for the other person and are re in forced through the r e c i p i e n t ' s expression of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t . Aronfreed's (1968) t h e o r e t i c a l basis for the learning, and performance of a l t r u i s t i c behavior was e s s e n t i a l l y a condi t ion ing process . A c h i l d learned to attach r e i n f o r -cing proper t ies to the observed changes i n the a f fec t i ve experience of others, fo l lowing a helping response. The a f f e c t i v e arousal of an observer i s labeled as empathy by Aronfreed (1969) and defined as "the c h i l d ' s a f f e c t i v e ex-perience when i t i s e l i c i t e d by cues of a corresponding a f f e c t i v e state in the expressive behavior of another per -son (p. 292)." Empathy was considered a necessary antece-dent for the e l i c i t a t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c responses: A l t r u i s t i c behavior can be acquired through observa-t i o n a l learning and the concomitant performance of s i m i l a r responses. Imitat ion can be i n t r i n s i c a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g as a r e s u l t of an observer 's placement of a f f e c t i v e value upon the model's behavior . The cogni t ive components of modeled behavior can take on an a f f e c t i v e value which i n turn regu-22 la tes response reproduction as a d i r e c t funct ion of the accompanying r e i n f o r c i n g propert ies i n the observer 's a f f e c -t i v e s t a t e . Rosenhan and White (1967) studied the e l i c i t a t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c behavior i n boys and g i r l s se lected from the fourth and f i f t h grades using a modeling paradigm. They hypothesized that an i n t e r n a l i z e d norm of p r o s o c i a l behavior can be generated through the observation of a model. The subjects were i n i t i a l l y exposed to a f ive-minute p o s i t i v e , negat ive , or no i n t e r a c t i o n per iod with an adult male model. Immediately fo l lowing th is phase the c h i l d and model played a miniature bowling game a l te rna t ing turns for a t o t a l of twenty t r i a l s . Both won two f i v e - c e n t g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e s on two of the t r i a l s fo r obtaining a s p e c i f i e d score which then could be donated to an orphan's fund. A f te r the f i r s t game the model donated one of two c e r t i f i c a t e s each time he won. The model then l e f t the experimental room and the subject was permitted to play the game alone and to donate anonymously. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences were found between the types of p r i o r i n t e r a c t i o n on subsequent imi ta t ion of the model's responses. They repor ted, however, that the subjects who donated i n the presence of the model were more frequently char i tab le i n h is absence and suggested that the a c q u i s i t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c behavior i s dependent upon both observation and rehearsal to "establish the habit of altruism (p. 429)." About f i f t y percent of the children donated t h e i r winnings i n the absence of the model. The e l i c i t a t i o n of a l t r u i s t i c responses may have been par t l y dependent upon the observation of a model who aroused an observer's empathy for the other person i n d i s t r e s s . I t appeared, then, that the more sim i l a r the model to the obser-ver the greater the a f f e c t i v e arousal i n the observer which i n turn should increase the incidence of an observer's a l t r u i s t i c acts. Hornstein, Fisch, and Holmes (196 8) have recently conducted a f i e l d experiment using a helping response as the dependent variable and manipulating the perceptions of a model graphically. Three l e t t e r s were composed r e f l e c t i n g the finder's neutral, p o s i t i v e , or negative feelings about accep-ti n g the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of returning a man's l o s t wallet. The phraseology of each l e t t e r provided for a s i m i l a r -d i s s i m i l a r dimension. An open envelope containing the wallet and one of the l e t t e r s was unobtrusively deposited at the pedestrian crossing. The findinas revealed that the number of wallets returned was greatest when posit i v e and neutral feelings were expressed by a model perceived as s i m i l a r , however, there were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two expressive conditions. An ex-pression of p o s i t i v e , neutral, or negative experiences by a d i s s i m i l a r model and the negative feelings of the s i m i l a r model resulted i n no differences between these conditions 24 and a s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer number of wal lets being returned by subjects i n a l l these groups. This suggested that, when s o c i a l models perceived as s i m i l a r expressed fee l ings about t h e i r behavior i t a f fected an observer 's responses i n the same d i r e c t i o n . A d i s s i m i l a r model e l i c i t e d fewer matching responses i n a l l ca tegor ies . The aggregate research f indings appeared to suggest that the r e a l or assumed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the model were important antecedents which would inf luence an observer 's a t tent ion and retent ion of re levant modeling s t i m u l i . When the stimulus propert ies of the model more c l o s e l y resembled those of an observer a greater arousal of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e states i n the observer should r e s u l t . I f , then, a l t r u i s t i c responses were the main dependent var iab le i t was predicted that the greater the s i m i l a r i t y between a model and observer the more a f f e c t i v e arousal would become.associated with the model's behavior r e s u l t i n g i n a concomitantly higher i n c i -dence of a l t r u i s t i c responses. As Hornste in , F i s c h , and Holmes (1968) and Rosekrans (1967) reported fewer matching responses by observers watching a d i s s i m i l a r model then i t could be predicted that ch i ld ren observing a model perceived as d i s s i m i l a r would perform fewer a l t r u i s t i c responses. On the basis of the previous review i t was reasonable to hypothesize that the presence of a model would produce a greater number of a l t r u i s t i c responses than when no model 25 was observed. It a lso seemed j u s t i f i a b l e to hypothesize that the greater the s i m i l a r i t i e s shared between the model and the observer , the greater number of a l t r u i s t i c responses would be produced by the observer. However, as previous studies have suggested, the sex d i f ference i n terms of a l -t r u i s t i c responses was predicted i n e i ther way and the r e -s u l t s showed no evidence for a d i r e c t i o n a l p r e d i c t i o n there fore , a n u l l hypothesis would be l o g i c a l . I I I . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This research consisted of two experimental studies designed to tes t the in f luence of a same-sex peer model on (1) monetary contr ibut ions and (2) volunteer ing responses to help on a pro ject for char i tab le purposes. The same-sex peer model was used as i t was assumed there would be a lesser tendency to emulate the opposite sex model's responses. Based on the assumption that a c h i l d ' s perceived s i m i l a r i t y with a model on some t r a i t s w i l l general ize to other charac-t e r i s t i c s and behaviora l responses, th is study a lso attempted to examine the e f f e c t of t h i s var iab le on two types of a l -t r u i s t i c behavior . The s i m i l a r i t y dimension was manipulated by informing each subject during a pre-experimental i n t e r -act ion with the experimenter, how much commonality ex is ted with the model. To fur ther increase the perceptions of 26 s i m i l a r i t y and d i s s i m i l a r i t y the model appeared i n d i f f e r e n t c l o t h i n g f o r the two c o n d i t i o n s . The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s on which the design of t h i s experiment were based were the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Does the presence of a model e l i c i t more don-a t i o n s of money and s e r v i c e time f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes i n f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n than no model? 2. Does the s i m i l a r i t y shared between the observer and model a f f e c t the donations of money and s e r v i c e time f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes i n f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n ? 3. Are there any sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n donating money and s e r v i c e time f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes i n f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n ? S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses these s t u d i e s were de-signed t o t e s t a r e : Hypothesis I : There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence between the money (token) donations of the model and the no-model c o n d i t i o n s i n both sexes. Hypothesis II : There w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r money (token) donations where a g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y i s shared between the observer and the model i n both sexes. 27 Hypothesis III : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f ferences in the money (token) donations. CHAPTER III METHOD Experimental Design A two-factor design was employed for each experiment i n which the three treatment cond i t ions : mode l -s imi la r , model -neutra l , and mode l -d iss imi la r , were nested wi th in the sex f a c t o r . The dependent var iab le i n Experiment I was monetary contr ibut ions and i n Experiment II the volunteer ing of free time to work on a pro ject for c h a r i t y . Sex and the three l eve ls of perceived s i m i l a r i t y const i tu ted the indepen-dent v a r i a b l e s . The fo l lowing terms,, used throughout th is research require c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Model -Simi lar (M-S). Referred to a same-sex peer model a t t i r e d i n contemporary c l o t h i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the exper i -menter described the model to the subject as being s im i l a r i n terms of type of school attended, grade enrol lment, fav-o r i t e sub jec ts , preferences for games, hobbies or spor ts , and most l i k e d t e l e v i s i o n program. Model-Neutral (M-N). Referred to a same-sex peer model a t t i r e d i n contemporary c l o t h i n g . The experimenter, however, d id not inform the subject p r i o r to the experimental i n t e r a c t i o n of any s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s that may e x i s t between the subject and model. 29 Model-Dissimilar (M-D). Referred to the same-sex peer model appearing with disheveled hair, large horn-rimmed glasses and wearing out-moded clothing. The experimenter informed the subject p r i o r to meeting the model that they were i n d i f f e r e n t grades, attended d i f f e r e n t types of schools, did not l i k e the same academic subjects, games, sports or hobbies, or the same t e l e v i s i o n program. No-Model Control. Referred to the condition i n which no model was present throughout the experimental s i t u a t i o n . Treatment of Data The s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used to analyze the data were analysis of variance run on program BMDOIV at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center, and ortho-gonal comparisons of the d i f f e r e n t treatment groups (Hays, 1963; Kirk, 1968; Winer, 1962). Subjects and Models The subjects were 160 boys and 160 g i r l s enrolled i n the f i f t h grade of six public elementary schools i n a pre-dominantly middle-class r e s i d e n t i a l area. The boys ranged i n age from 10.1 to 11.5 with a mean age of 11.0; the g i r l s ' age range was 10.9 to 11.4 with a mean age of 11.1. Barenfcalocon-sent.'.was'..requested through a l e t t e r from the p r i n c i p a l (Appendix A) with approximately ninety-eight percent of the returns granting permission. 30 Twenty boys and twenty g i r l s were randomly assigned to one of three experimental condit ions or to a cont ro l group wi th in each experiment. A sample of 16 0 subjects was used for each study. A f i f t h grade boy and g i r l were chosen from a pub l ic elementary school i n South Burnaby to act as models. The s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n was the a b i l i t y to perform na tura l ly for an observer i n a game s i t u a t i o n . It was a lso necessary to ensure that no previous acquaintainceship ex is ted between the models and prospect ive sub jec ts . One experimenter conducted both studies for a l l sub-jects with an ass is tan t operat ing the apparatus. Apparatus and Mater ia ls The apparatus was a modif ied vers ion of the bowling game described by Bandura and Whalen (1966). Designed to give the appearance of a game of s k i l l , i t consisted of a f i v e foot high wooden fo ld ing booth painted a b r i l l i a n t yel low and decorated with colored paper f lowers. A narrow three foot long a l l e y with a shorter marble return chute d i r -e c t l y above i t projected approximately f i f t e e n inches from the l e f t s ide of the f ront pane l . A reward dispenser was placed i n the center of the panel adjacent to the marble channel and below four colored e l e c t r i c l i g h t s (red, b lue , green, and white) embedded i n two hor i zonta l rows at the 31 child's eye l e v e l . The l i g h t s were operated manually by a series of push button switches controlled from the back of the apparatus. The booth f i t t e d into a corner which deterred subjects from looking behind. The space provided by the school for the experiments varied according to a v a i l a b i l i t y and consisted of a l i b r a r y , bookroom, kitchen, nurse's room or regular classroom, but the experimental setup with the apparatus used remained as invariable as possible. A desk b e l l was rung once to indicate " s t a r t " and twice to signal "game over." Pennies for Experiment I and colored p l a s t i c tokens, each representing f i v e minutes of early dismissal time for Experiment II were dispensed as rewards. A large white piece of cardboard to which was af f i x e d a picture of a ragged and emaciated East Indian c h i l d , with the words "Help Hungry Indian Children" below i t , was placed approximately six to eight feet from the bowling equipment. A donation can with a s l o t i n the l i d was placed beside the chart. A questionnaire (Appendix B) was devised to provide information about the subjects' preferred academic and l e i -sure time a c t i v i t i e s . The models wore popularly styled apparel for the model-similar and model-neutral conditions, however, some 32 minor changes were made for the model -d iss imi la r cond i t ion . The boy-model wore an oversized red sport s h i r t , and the g i r l -mode l changed to a long pink jumper with long black beads. Both wore large horn-rimmed g l a s s e s , disarranged t h e i r ha i r s l i g h t l y and wrinkled the i r socks. Procedure The teachers were not made cognizant of the exper i -mental d e t a i l s i n an e f f o r t to cont ro l any poss ib le t rans-mission of information to the subjects throughout the exper i -mental p e r i o d . A l l schools had two f i f t h grade c lasses and the subjects fo r each experiment were recru i ted exc lus ive ly from one c l a s s . Experiment I and II were conducted on two consecutive days, with the exception of two schools i n which there was an i n t e r v a l of one and four d a y s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The same peer models were used throughout the experiments on an a l ternate ha l f -day b a s i s . Each p a r t i c i p a t i n g teacher administered a quest ionnaire approximately one week before the experiment. Information revealed through the f i v e responses provided a structure for the experimenter to verba l ly manipulate the sub jec t 's per-ceptions of the model. A randomly arranged l i s t of subjects was provided for the teacher immediately preceding the ses-s i o n , and she was requested to no t i fy and send each c h i l d i n d i v i d u a l l y to the experimental room. A desk and cha i r were 33 posi t ioned outside the experimental room, usual ly i n the cloakroom or hal lway, where the experimenter b r i e f l y i n t e r -viewed each subject . Experimental ins t ruc t ions for each of the treatment and cont ro l groups are found i n Appendix C. The experimenter introduced every subject to the model, gave game ins t ruc t ions and drew at tent ion to the char i tab le pro jec t to be conducted i n the school then l e f t the room. Each subject observed a model play one game and donate e i ther pennies or tokens. The model then l e f t the room and the subject played one game alone. A f te r completion of a s ing le game the subject l e f t the experimental room and was met by the experimenter who asked a question about the sub jec t ' s percept ion of the model. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS I AND I I The purpose of Experiments I and I I was to examine the e f f e c t s o f p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y , n e u t r a l i t y , and d i s s i m i l a r i t y of same-sex peer models on f i f t h grade boys' and g i r l s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f money and s e r v i c e time f o r a c h a r i t a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The dependent v a r i a b l e i n Experiment I was observed i n terms of the number o f pennies d e p o s i t e d i n a donation can by each s u b j e c t . The measure ranged from zero t o f i f -t een. In Experiment I I the number of tokens, each r e p r e -s e n t i n g f i v e minutes of time, d e p o s i t e d i n the c o n t r i b u t i o n c o n t a i n e r was the c r i t e r i o n measure. The range was from zero to f o u r p l a s t i c tokens or i n terms of time zero to twenty minutes. The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses f o r the two s t u d i e s are as f o l l o w s : Hypothesis I : There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the money (token) donations of the model and the no-model c o n d i t i o n s i n both sexes. 35 Hypothesis II : There w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater money (token) donations where a greater s i m i l a r i t y i s shared between the observer and the model i n both sexes. Hypothesis III : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f ferences i n the money (token) donations. Percentages of p o s i t i v e , negat ive, and undecided r e s -ponses were ca lcu la ted to examine the e f fect iveness of the perceived s i m i l a r i t y v a r i a b l e . The percentages for subjects i n each condi t ion are shown i n Table 1. The substan t ia l d i f fe rences between percentages of each experimental group,;''1 shows a successfu l manipulation of the perceived s i m i l a r i t y v a r i a b l e . The means and mean square er ror of penny and token donations for boys and g i r l s under the d i f f e r e n t perceived s i m i l a r i t y condit ions and no-model cont ro l group are presen-ted i n Table 2. The raw data on which these means are based may be found i n Appendices D, E , F, and G. A l i n e a r trend i s apparent among the means of the perceived s i m i l a r i t y condit ions in the order of the M-S, M-N, and M-D condit ions for both sexes. A graphic representat ion of the l i n e a r trend among the means of the treatment and con-t r o l groups for both experiments i s shown i n Figures 1 and 2. TABLE 1 Summary of Percentages and Tota l Number Responding Yes, No, and Undecided to S i m i l a r i t y Question* wi th in each Experimental ;Condit ion Condi-t ion Experiment I Boys G i r l s Experiment II Boys G i r l s Yes Don't No Tota l Yes Don't No Tota l Yes Don't No Tota l Yes Don't No Tota l Know Know Know Know M-S 90% 5% 5% 20 95% 5% 0% 20 80% 5% 15% 20 95% 5% 0% 20 M-N 15% 85% 0% 20 10% 90% 0% 20 10% 90% 0% 20 15% 85% 0% 20 M-D 10% 10% 80% 20 10% 20% 70% 20 5% 10% 85% 20 10% 5% 85% 20 * "Do you think (M's name) i s a l o t l i k e you are?" co 37 TABLE 2 Means of Penny and Token Donations for Boys and G i r l s i n the Three Perceived S i m i l a r i t y Con-d i t ions and the No-model Control Treatment Condit ion Experiment I Boys G i r l s Experiment II Boys G i r l s '^ N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean Model Similar(M-S) 20 10.25 20 10.15 20 2.85 20 2.95 Neutral(M-N) 20 8.55 20 10.20 20 2.00 20 2.60 D i s s i m i l a r (M-D) 20 7.05 20 8.00 20 1.90 20 2.05 No-model Control 20 4.40 20 5.10 20 0.80 20 1.20 MS Er ror (Experiment I) = 16.95 MS Er ror (Experiment II)= 1.68 38 15 . co Sio E - i < O Q I 5 W Cu 1 0 S -* G i r l s . . Boys No-model M-D M-N CONDITIONS M-S Figure 1. Mean penny donations for the three model s i m i l a r i t y conditions and no-model co n t r o l . o H < O P W O E H w a 3 . 0 G i r l s Boys No-model M-S M-D M-N CONDITIONS Figure 2. Mean token donations for the three mode! s i m i l a r i t y conditions and no-model contr o l . 39 Before the one-way analys is of var iance , Cochran's tes t for homogeneity of variance was employed. The Cochran's s t a t i s t i c demonstrated a homogeneity of variance = .1731, p * .01 fo r Experiment I and C ^ g = .2028 for Experiment II . The se lected l e v e l of hypothesis tes t ing for o v e r a l l Type I e r ror for the re jec t ion of the n u l l hypothesis was £ = «05. A summary of the r e s u l t s of the analys is of var iance , using the t o t a l number of penny and token contr ibut ions i n each group i s presented in Tables 3 and 4. TABLE 3 Summary of Ana lys is of Variance of the Penny Contr ibut ions fo r a l l Groups Source of Var ia t ion SS df MS F Treatments (between groups) 741 .78 7 105 .97 6 .25 Er ror (within groups) 2575 .99 152 16 .95 Totals 3317 .77 159 * p < .0005 . 40 TABLE 4 Summary of Analys is of Variance of the Token Contr ibut ions for a l l Groups Source of Var ia t ion SS df MS F Treatments (between groups) 81.24 7 11.61 6.91* Er ror (within groups) 255.45 152 1.68 Totals 336.69 159 * p < .0005-The inspect ion of Tables 3 and 4 ind icates a s i g n i f i c a n t F showing that the d i f f e r e n t condit ions af fected the frequency of a l t r u i s t i c responses. Tables 5 and 6 present a summary of the comparisons made to tes t the s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses in Experiments I and II , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t was predicted under Hypothesis I that a d i f ference would e x i s t between the money and token donations of the model-ing groups and the no-model cont ro l groups. The contrast made for- t h i s hypothesis i n both experiments i s s i g n i f i c a n t (F^ = 15.73/ £ <• 0005 for boys; and E1 1 5 2 = 16.75, £ < .0005 for g i r l s ) i n Experiment 1 and i n Experiment II (F^ = 18.76, £ < .0005 for boys; and F, = 15.86, £ < .0005 for g i r l s ) . 41 TABLE 5 Summary of Ana lys is of Treatment E f f e c t s i n Terms of Penny Donations Source of Var ia t ion SS df MS F Between groups 741,78 7 Orthogonal Contrasts 1. Model vs No-model(Boys) 1 266 .70 15. 7 3 * * * * Model vs No-model (Gi r ls 1 283 .84 16. 7 5 * * * * 2. Non-Diss imi lar Model+ vs D i s s i m i l a r Model(Boys) 1 73 .63 4. 37** Non-Diss imi lar Model"*" vs D i s s i m i l a r Model(Gir ls) 1 63 .31 3. 73* Model -Simi lar vs Model-Neutral (Boys) 1 2 8 .90 1. 70 Model -Simi lar vs Model-Neutral (Gir ls) 1 .03 <1. 0 3. Boys vs G i r l s 1 25 .60 1. 51 Test of a L inear Trend among Three Model Conditions(Boys) 1 102 .40 6. 04*** Test of a L inear Trend among Three Model Condi t ions(Gi r ls ) 1 46 .23 2. 73* Er ror (w i th in groups) 2576.00 152 16 .95 Tota ls 3317.77 159 t Non-Diss imi lar Model i s and Model-Neutral a combination of : Model--S imi la r *p < .10 .. * *p < .05 . * * * p < .025 . .*.*..* *.p. < .0005. 42 TABLE 6 Summary of Analys is of Treatment E f f e c t s i n Terms of Token Donations Source of Var ia t ion SS df MS F Between groups 81.24 7 Orthogonal Contrasts 1. Model vs No-model(Boys) 1 31. 54 18 Model vs No-model(Girls) 1 26. 67 15 .86** * * 2. Non-Diss imi lar Model+ ys D i s s i m i l a r Model(Boys) ! 1 3. 68 2 .19 + Non-Diss imi lar Model vs D i s s i m i l a r Model(Gir ls) 1 7. 01 4 .17** Model -Simi lar vs Model-Neutral (Boys) 1 7. 23 4 ,30** Model -Simi lar vs Model-Neutral (Gir ls) 1 1. 23 <1 .0 3. Boys vs G i r l s 1 3. 90 2 .33* Test of a L inear Trend Among Three Model Conditions(Boys) 1 9. 03 5 37*** Test of a L inear Trend Among Three Model Condi t ions(Gi r ls ) 1 8. 10 4 .82** Er ror (within groups) 255.45 152 1. 68 Tota ls 336.69 159 t Non-Diss imi lar Model i s a combination of Model -Simi lar and Model-Neutral *p < .10 . * * * p < .025. * *p < .05 . * * * * p < .0005. 4 3 The presence of a model was more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g con-t r ibu t ions of pennies and tokens than when no model was present . It was predicted under Hypothesis II that there would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater money and token donations where a greater s i m i l a r i t y was shared between the observer and the model for both sexes. The contrasts made to tes t th is hypo-thes is were the combination of Model -Simi lar and Model-Neutral , designated as Non-Diss imi lar Model, compared to the Model-D i s s i m i l a r condi t ion and the second comparison was Model-S imi la r versus the Model-Neutral cond i t ion . In Experiment I the Non-Diss imi lar Model was more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g penny donations than a model who was perceived as d i s s i m i l a r fo r boys ' ( F ^ 1 5 2 = 4 . 3 7 , p < . 0 5 ) . The r e s u l t s ind ica te a trend i n the same d i r e c t i o n for g i r l s , however, th is was not s i g n i -f i c a n t ( F ^ ^ t - 2 = 3 . 7 3 , p < . 1 0 ) . The contrasts for the Model-S imi la r versus the Model-Neutral condi t ion were not s t a t i s t i -c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , for e i ther sex. In Experiment II the contrast between the Non-Diss imi lar Model and the Model -D iss imi lar was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t for boys but a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f ec t was found for g i r l s ( F ^ 1 5 2 = 4 . 1 7 , p_ < . 0 5 ) . The Model-S imi la r compared to the Model-Neutral condi t ion was found s i g -n i f i c a n t ( F ^ ^ 5 2 = 4 . 3 0 , p_ < . 0 5 ) for boys, but not for g i r l s ( F l f 1 5 2 = 1 . 0 ) . 44 The greater the perceived s i m i l a r i t y between the model and observer , the greater the contr ibut ions of pennies and tokens. I t was predicted under Hypothesis III that there would be no sex d i f ferences i n the money or token donations. The contrast for sex d i f ferences i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n e i ther experiment, however, there appears to be a trend t o -ward g i r l s donating more tokens than boys (F^ i ; - 2 = 2.33, p < .10) . The mean number of token donations for g i r l s i s 2.20 and for boys 1.89. CHAPTER V . DISCUSSION The same-sex peer models used i n these two experiments demonstrated the e f fec ts of a model as an e l i c i t i n g stimulus for the performance of a l t r u i s t i c responses in both boys and g i r l s . Both penny contr ibut ions and the volunteer ing of se r -v ice time were s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater fo l lowing exposure to modeling s t i m u l i . A b r i e f observation of a model coupled with the model's statement and donation of a s p e c i f i c amount of money seemed to be s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t i v e cues wi th in the t o t a l stimulus s i t u a t i o n for the reproduction of s i m i l a r be-hav ior . The example provided by the model could a lso have de-f ined the s i t u a t i o n i n terms of acceptable s o c i a l norms for the observer. The no-model cont ro l group had no occasion to view the model's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s nor were any normative s tan-dards set through observat ion. It was notable that only f i v e g i r l s and four boys i n the no-model cont ro l group gave no money which provided support for the assumption that some a l -t r u i s t i c behavior had been prev iously learned but performance of a s p e c i f i c response was f a c i l i t a t e d by the presence of a model. This f ind ing was counter to the Rosenhan and White (1967) study i n which none of the no-model cont ro l subjects contr ibuted f i v e - c e n t g i f t c e r t i f i c a t e s . Boys were more inf luenced by models perceived as s i m i -l a r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n volunteer ing time for a char i tab le purpose, 46 than when they observed the performance of a l t r u i s t i c r e s -ponses by a neutra l model. The degree of actual and assumed s i m i l a r i t y between the male observer and peer model apparently in f luenced the a t tent ion given to the re levant modeling cues and the concomitant reproduction of matching responses a f ter the model l e f t the experimental room. A poss ib le a n t i -c i p a t i o n of working with a s i m i l a r peer on a char i tab le pro-jec t might have been a fac tor which inf luenced the boys volunteer ing responses. There were no d i f ferences i n e i ther experiment between the model -s imi lar and model-neutral condit ions for g i r l s . This might have been par t l y a funct ion of the peer model who was a very appealing c h i l d . Responses to the post-experimental question suggest that there was no immediate awareness of s p e c i f i c s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f ferences i n the neutra l group but f requent ly (one out of f ive) subjects s ta ted , " . . . but she seems very n i c e . " This informal observation seems to suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that external c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as appearance, as we l l as the l im i ted i n t e r a c t i o n between the subject and model during the game provided s u f f i c i e n t cues which made the model a re levant comparison person. This f ind ing confirmed that of Hornste in , F i s c h , and Holmes (1968) i n which they reported no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences i n helping behaviors of adults fo l lowing exposure to wr i t ten s t imu l i expressing p o s i t i v e or neutra l fee l ings by models perceived as s i m i l a r . 47 The combination of model-similar and model-neutral, referred to as a non-dissimilar model, contrasted with the model-dissimilar condition suggests that the more s i m i l a r i t y perceived between a model and an observer the greater the contributions of pennies but not service time for boys. Boys i n the model-neutral and model-dissimilar conditions donated approximately equivalent donations (M-N mean was 2.00; and M-D mean was 1.90). These results suggest that boys require more information to increase the s i m i l a r i t y between them-selves and a peer model, who they may have anticipated working with on a project, before they are w i l l i n g to volunteer ser-vice time. Further support.for t h i s i s found i n the s i g n i -f i c a n t difference between the model-similar and model-neutral condition i n token donations. Boys volunteered s i g n i f i c a n t l y more service time following observation of a sim i l a r model than one about which they had no p r i o r information. The greater the s i m i l a r i t y that i s shared between an observer and a peer model appears to s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence the penny donations for boys and the token contributions for g i r l s . There was also a trend for g i r l s to donate more pennies (p < .10) following observation of a non-dissimilar model than a d i s s i m i l a r model. A li n e a r trend was apparent among the means of the perceived s i m i l a r i t y conditions i n both experiments indicating that a l t r u i s t i c responses for both sexes tend to increase as the degree of s i m i l a r i t y be-48 tween observer and model i s increased. Consistent with the findings of Rosekrans (1967) the present study showed that the variable of perceived s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y functioned as a determinant of the degree to which a peer model's behavior i s matched by an observer. Boys and g i r l s i n both experiments who were informed and observed evidence of s i m i l a r i t i e s between themselves and the model imitated more of the model's donations of money and service time than subjects who were t o l d and saw d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s . G i r l s , however, were not as influenced i n the donation of pennies as i n the volunteering of service time. This may be attributed to the r e l a t i v e ease of donating money which had just been won, over the s a c r i f i c i n g of free time, p a r t i c u l a r l y when volunteering may have involved working with a d i s s i m i l a r peer. Children have access to more money i n contemporary society, therefore, f i f t e e n pennies may not have been a s u f f i c i e n t amount to warrant a high value. The donation of part or a l l of i t , then, might not be prohibitory. The i n -frequency of early school dismissal may have increased i t s p o s i t i v e e f f e c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y during the fine weather, which could have p a r t i a l l y influenced volunteering for charitable work. None of the conditions of perceived s i m i l a r i t y had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e cts upon g i r l s ' penny c o n t r i -butions . This indicates that g i r l s may be a l t r u i s t i c when 49 s a l i e n t s o c i a l norms are presented regardless of the model's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Exposure to a graphic i l l u s t r a t i o n of a hungry c h i l d and the request for f i n a n c i a l assistance might have aroused an empathic state which tended to e l i c i t dona-t ions to r e l i e v e another's s t r e s s . Boys, however, appeared less w i l l i n g than g i r l s to donate money when the model was d i s s i m i l a r . This impl ies that the inf luence of the perceived model's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s outweighed any empathic state in boys which may have been induced by the p lea for help and the pos te r . From a s o c i a l - l e a r n i n g or ien ta t ion the r e s u l t s of the present study support Bandura's (1969) p o s i t i o n that modeling i s p a r t l y a funct ion of observer-model s i m i l a r i t y . The e f fec ts of perceived s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y could be a func-t i o n of stimulus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . This may have evolved through a previous h is to ry during which imi ta t ion of s i m i l a r models was consequated by p o s i t i v e reinforcement, whereas no reinforcement or perhaps punishment followed behavior i m i -ta t ive of d i s s i m i l a r models. As a r e s u l t s i m i l a r models became p o s i t i v e d iscr imina t ive s t imu l i for the e l i c i t a t i o n of im i ta t ive behavior . I t fo l lows , then, that the knowledge of in terpersonal s i m i l a r i t i e s acts as a d iscr imina t ive s t im-ulus which increases matching responses. The l i n e a r trend apparent i n the means of the d i f f e r e n t treatment groups of both experiments supports, t h i s not ion . 50 The research l i t e r a t u r e reported no consistent sex d i f fe rences i n a l t r u i s t i c behavior , however, Hartshorne, May, and Mai ler (1929) using acts of serv ice such as making p ic ture cards and toys for s ick ch i ld ren and donating money and ice-cream to orphanages, found a tendency for boys to be >3ress h e l p f u l than g i r l s . Seventy- f ive percent of the boys that attended a pub l ic school but res ided i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l se t t ing were less h e l p f u l than g i r l s i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n and f o r t y - f o u r percent of the boys enro l led i n a suburban community school were less h e l p f u l than g i r l s . The f indings of the present study show no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f fe rences occurred i n e i ther experiment although there appeared to be a tendency for g i r l s to volunteer more time for serv ice (p < .10) than boys. I t may be that g i r l s r e s -pond more to an appeal for d i r e c t involvement i n providing what they an t ic ipa te w i l l br ing a l l e v i a t i n g consequences for the needy r e c i p i e n t . On the other hand, an opportunity for s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n during the pro ject may have been an i n f l u -e n t i a l f a c t o r . The stimulus condit ions for e l i c i t i n g money donations and volunteer ing responsespprovided no external s o c i a l r e -inforcement as a consequence for the model's or donor's a l t r u i s t i c responses. S i t u a t i o n a l pressures , such as the presence of other peers or adults, which may act as forces 51 f o r i n c r e a s i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y o r a response o c c u r r i n g were removed. I m i t a t i o n , however, can be i n t r i n s i c a l l y r e i n f o r -c i n g as a r e s u l t o f an o b s e r v e r ' s p lacement o f an a f f e c t i v e v a l u e upon the mode l ' s b e h a v i o r . The c o g n i t i v e components o f modeled b e h a v i o r can take on an a f f e c t i v e v a l u e which i n t u r n r e g u l a t e s response r e p r o d u c t i o n as a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f the accompanying r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s i n the o b s e r v e r ' s a f f e c t i v e s t a t e ( A r o n f r e e d , 1969). The s o c i a l s t i m u l i , r e p r e s e n t e d by a needy I n d i a n c h i l d and a d o n a t i o n c a n , c o u l d have evoked an a f f e c t i v e s t a t e i n the s u b j e c t and a c o r r e s -ponding, p lacement o f a f f e c t i v e v a l u e on the mode l s ' d o n a t i o n b e h a v i o r . R e p r o d u c t i o n o f the models ' a l t r u i s t i c response c o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , have i n t r i n s i c a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g consequences wJjich negates the n e c e s s i t y f o r e x t e r n a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d r e i n -forcement . The c o n c l u s i o n s which can be drawn from the r e s u l t s o f these exper iments a r e : 1. The same-sex peer model i s more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i -c i t i n g a l t r u i s t i c r e s p o n s e s , o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as c o n -t r i b u t i o n s o f money and v o l u n t e e r i n g s e r v i c e t ime than no mode l . 2 . The g r e a t e r the r e a l o r assumed s i m i l a r i t y b e -tween the o b s e r v e r and model the more e f f e c t i v e the model i s i n e l i c i t i n g penny and s e r v i c e t ime d o n a t i o n s . 52 3. The presence o f a model who i s p e r c e i v e d as s i m i l a r i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g money d o n a t i o n s and s e r v i c e t ime than a model p e r c e i v e d as d i s -s i m i l a r . 4. No sex d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the donat ions o f money or t ime to work on a c h a r i t a b l e p r o j e c t . LIMITATIONS OF THESE STUDIES The m a j o r , l i m i t a t i o n o f both s t u d i e s was the use o f o n l y one model f o r each sex which p l a c e d r e s t r i c t i o n s upon the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s . I f two peer models f o r each sex had been t r a i n e d and randomly a s s i g n e d to the d i f f e r -ent s c h o o l s i t would have been p o s s i b l e to e v a l u a t e s p e c i f i c model e f f e c t s . An e q u a l number o f p o s s i b l e responses above and below the mode l ' s a c t u a l d o n a t i o n would have p e r m i t t e d a g r e a t e r s p r e a d of s u b j e c t c o n t r i b u t i o n s by r a i s i n g the r e l a t i v e l y low c e i l i n g which e x i s t e d i n both s t u d i e s . The e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s v e r b a l q u e s t i o n i n these s t u d i e s may have e l i c i t e d responses based on the s u b j e c t ' s e x p e c t a -t i o n s o f what would be an a p p r o p r i a t e response r a t h e r than t h e i r a c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n s . P a p e r - p e n c i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s admin-i s t e r e d immedia te ly f o l l o w i n g the s u b j e c t - m o d e l i n t e r a c t i o n may have e l i m i n a t e d any examiner e f f e c t s which may have o p e r -a t e d i n these s t u d i e s . 53 Imitat ion of the model's responses was r e s t r i c t e d by the e x i s t i n g environmental c o n s t r a i n t s , such as the game dev ice , immediate winnings' and the c lose proximity to the mechanism of the donation can and appeal poster . No attempt was made to tes t the genera l i za t ion of the a l t r u i s t i c r e s -ponse beyond the experimental se t t ing nor was a tes t of. s t a -b i l i t y over time u t i l i z e d . SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH A mul t ip le peer model design as wel l as a comparison between the same- and opposite-sex adult and peer models on c h i l d r e n ' s helping behaviors would provide information on the in f luence of d i f f e r e n t sex and age models. A long i tud ina l study of a l t r u i s t i c behavior could explore any e x i s t i n g d i f -f e r e n t i a l e f fec ts of models over t ime. I t i s conceivable that models may be more e f f e c t i v e s t imu l i for e l i c i t i n g a l -t r u i s t i c responses'at varying age l e v e l s . A comparative examination of the two kinds of help ing behavior donating money and volunteer ing t ime, could provide valuable data . This would require a previous equivalence study to ensure that the two var iab les could be meaningfully contrasted. A study i n which the perceived s i m i l a r i t y dimension was examined as a continuous var iab le would provide data on where the cut o f f points among the categories of s i m i l a r , 54 n e u t r a l , and d i s s i m i l a r were located . An examination of the long i tud ina l s t a b i l i t y and the genera l i za t ion of modeling e f fec ts to varying s i tua t ions would be a valuable extension of a laboratory study of a l t r u i s t i c behavior . 55 REFERENCES Ar o n f r e e d , J . Conduct and c o n s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1968. A r o n f r e e d , J . The concept of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . In D.A. G o s l i n (Ed.), Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory and,research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969. A r o n f r e e d , J . , & P a s k a l , V . The development of sympathetic behavior i n c h i l d r e n : An experimental t e s t of a two-phase h y p o t h e s i s . Unpublished manuscript. U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n sylvania, 1965. A r o n f r e e d , J . , & P a s k a l , V. A l t r u i s m , empathy and the con-d i t i o n i n g of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t . Reported i n Aronfreed, J . Conduct and c o n s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1968. Bandura, A. S o c i a l l e a r n i n g through i m i t a t i o n . In M.R. Jones, (Ed.) , Nebraska symposium on'motivation: 1962. L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s , 1962, pp. 211-269. Bandura, A. V i c a r i o u s p r o c e s s e s : A case of n o - t r i a l l e a r n i n g . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l  psychology. V o l . 2.' New York: Academic P r e s s , 1965. Bandura, A. S o c i a l - l e a r n i n g theory of i d e n t i f i c a t o r y processes, In D.A. G o s l i n (Ed.), Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory  and.research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. Transmission of a g g r e s s i o n through i m i t a t i o n of a g g r e s s i v e models. J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and p e r s o n a l i t y development. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston, 1963. Bandura, A., & Whalen, C.K. The i n f l u e n c e of antecedent r e -inforcement and d i v e r g e n t modeling cues on p a t t e r n s of s e l f - r e w a r d . . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1966, 3, 373-382. Berkowitz, L., & D a n i e l s , L.R. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and dependency. J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 196 3, 66, 429-436. Berkowitz, L., & D a n i e l s , L.R. • A f f e c t i n g the s a l i e n c e of the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y norm: E f f e c t s of p a s t help on the response to dependency r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1964, 68, 275-281. Bryan, J.H., & T e s t , M.A. Models and h e l p i n g : N a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s i n a i d i n g b ehavior. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 6, 400-40T. 56 Budcl, L . J . A l t ru ism ar r ives i n America. American Quar ter ly , 1956, 8, 40-52. Burnste in , E . , S to t land , E . , & Zander, A. S i m i l a r i t y to a model and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Journal of Abnormal and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 62, 257-264. Dewey, J . , & T u f t s , J . H . E t h i c s . New York: Henry H o l t , 190 8. Fes t inger , L. A theory of s o c i a l comparison processes. Human ' Re la t ions , 1954, 7, 117-140. Ei.s.cfeser/, W.F. Sharing i n preschool ch i ld ren as a funct ion of amount and type of reinforcement. Genetic Psychology  Monographs, 1963, 68, 215-245. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of r e c i p r o c i t y : A prel iminary s ta te -ment. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1960, 25, 161-178. Gr inder , R .E . Relat ions between behavioral and cogni t ive dimensions of conscience i n middle chi ldhood. C h i l d Development, 1964. 35, 881-891. Grusec. J . , & M i s c h e l . W. Model's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as determin-ants of s o c i a l l ea rn ing . Journal o f Personal i ty and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 4, 211-215. Handlon, B . J . . & Gross, P. The development of sharing behavior. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1959, 59, H a r r i s , D . B . , & Tseng, S . C . C h i l d r e n ' s a t t i tudes toward peers and parents as revealed by sentence completions. C h i l d  Development, 1957, 28, 401-411. Hartshorne, H . , May, M.A. , & M a i l e r , J . B . Studies i n serv ice  and s e l f - c o n t r o l . New York: Macmil lan, 1929. Hartup, W.W. Patterns of imi ta t ive behavior in young c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 1964, 35, 183-191. Hays, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s fo r psycho log is ts . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1963. H icks , D . J . Imitat ion and retent ion of f i lm-mediated aggres-s ive peer and adult models. Journal of Personal i ty and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, 2, 97-100. Hornste in , H .A . , F i s c h , E . , & Holmes, M. Influence of a model's f e e l i n g about h is behavior and h is relevance as a com-par ison other on observers ' helping behavior. Journal  of Personal i ty and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 10, 222-226. 57 Kagan, J . The concept of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Psycholog1ca1  Review, 1958, 65, 296-305. Kagan, J . On the need for r e l a t i v i s m . American Psychologist, 1967, 22, 131-142. Kirk, R.E. Experimenta 1 'design: Procedures for the behavioral  sciences. Belmont: Bfooks/Cole, 196 8. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J.H. Training charity i n children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 408-415. M i l l e r , N.E., & Dollard, J . S o c i a l learning and imitation. . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Montague, M.F.A. The o r i g i n and nature of s o c i a l l i f e and the b i o l o g i c a l basis of cooperation. In P. Sorokin (Ed.), Explorations i n a l t r u i s t i c love and behavior: A Symposium. Boston: Beacon, 1950, pn. 74-92. Murphy, G. Personality. New York: Harper, 1947. Mooney, J.B-., & Polansky, N.A. The influence of perceived s i m i l a r i t y and personality on verbal a c c e s s i b i l i t y . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1962, 8. 33-40. Piaget, J . The moral judgment of the c h i l d . New York: Harcourt,. Brace & World, 1932. Queen, S.A. The background of s o c i a l work. In E. Faris, et a l . (Eds.), I n t e l l i g e n t philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. P. 258. Reese, H.W. Sociometric choices of the same and opposite sex i n l ate childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1962, 8, 173-174. Rosekrans, M.A. Imitation i n children as a function of per-ceived s i m i l a r i t y to a s o c i a l model and vicarious reinforcement. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology,1967, 7, 307-315. Rosenhan, D., & White, G.M. Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 5, 424-431. 58 Rosenthal , A .M. Study of the sickness c a l l e d apathy. N.Y. Times Magazine S e c t i o n , 5/3/64, p. 24. Sorokin , P.A. Forms and techniques of a l t r u i s t i c and s p i r i t u a l  growth. Boston: Beacon, 1954. S to t land , E . , Zander, A . , & Natsoulas, T. The genera l i za t ion o ff i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i m i l a r i t y . Journal off Abnormal and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 62, 250-256. Turner, W.D. A l t ru ism and i t s measurement in c h i l d r e n , journa l  of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1948, 43, 502-516. Ugurel-Semin, R. Moral behavior and moral judgment of c h i l d r e n . Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1952, 47, 463-474. Wal lace, A . F . C . Tornado i n Worcester: An exploratory study  of i n d i v i d u a l and community behavior i n an extreme s i t u a t i o n . Washington, D . C . : Nat ional Academy of Sc iences-Nat ional Research C o u n c i l , 1956. Winer, B . J . S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimenta1 des ign. New York: McGraw-Hi l l , 1962. Wodehouse, H. Natural se l f i shness and i t s p o s i t i o n in the doctr ine of Freud. B r i t i s h Journal of Medical Psychology, 1929, 9,38-59. Wright, B.A. A l t ru ism i n ch i ld ren and the perceived conduct of o thers . Journal off Abnormal1 and Soc ia l 1 Psychology, 1942, 37,218, 233. A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A PRINCIPALS' LETTER TO PARENTS 60 To the Parents of F i f t h Grade Children i n Divisions and : With the permission of the Superintendent of Burnaby Schools a research project i s to be undertaken which should be of educational value i n providing information about children's s o c i a l behavior. I t w i l l require approximately f i f t e e n minutes of each child's school time. I hereby grant permission for my c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e . Signed '. -' ; ' : . 61 APPENDIX B PRE-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE NAME f i r s t l a s t DATE OF BIRTHDAY day month year AGE 1. What are your two favor i te subjects i n school? F i r s t • • • • - Second 2. What are your two favor i te games, hobbies or sports? F i r s t Second 3. What i s your favor i te T..V. program? 62 APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO EACH SUBJECT IN ALL GROUPS Trie fo l lowing explanation was given to a l l subjects i n a l l treatment condit ions and the cont ro l group: H i , you must be (S_'s name) ! Have a c h a i r . You have been s p e c i a l l y chosen to play a new and d i f f e r e n t sor t of game we are t ry ing out for the f i r s t time t h i s week. Do you l i k e to play games? Good! We l l , do you think that you w i l l be able to keep the game a secret u n t i l tomorrow a f te r school so that anyone e lse who may a lso have been chosen can have i t as a surpr ise too? It w i l l completely s p o i l i t for us too i f you t e l l , so can we depend on you then? At th is point the interview var ied according to the group to which the subject had been assigned. No-Model Cont ro l Group Subjects i n th is group were iimmediately escorted in to the experimental room and shown the apparatus with these i n s t r u c t i o n s : Here i s the game (S_'s name) , and i t cons is ts of ten r o l l s of the marble, l i k e th is (E demonstrated). If you s t r i k e i t lucky the red l i g h t (E pointed to the red l ight ) w i l l stay on and you w i l l win a p r i ze 63 of some pennies which you may keep a l l fo r y o u r s e l f . You w i l l know when to begin your game as you w i l l hear a h e l l r ing once and when your game i s over i t w i l l r ing twice. Then you can just go s t ra igh t back to your classroom with your winnings i f you have any. O.K.? As the E neared the door she suddenly turned and casu-a l l y s a i d : Oh, by the way, I understand there i s to be a pro ject at (name of school) to help hungry Indian ch i ld ren and i f you wish to donate any of the money you might happen to win to help these ch i ld ren you may put your donation in to the can over there (E pointed to the can then l e f t the room and closed the door) . Model -Simi lar Condit ion ;(M-S) E greeted each subject and fo l lowing the i n i t i a l ex-p l a n a t i o n , s a i d : W e l l , I brought along another (boy, g i r l ) who i s going to show you how the game works but before you meet (him, her) I thought you might l i k e to know something about what (he, she) i s l i k e . (His,her) name i s (M's name) and (he, she) i s i n grade f i v e jus t l i k e you are and goes to a school i n Burnaby very much T ike th is one. You sa id i n th is ques-64 tionnaire that your two favorite subjects i n school are ( ) and ( ) (E read the two subject names from the questionnaire). You know (M's name) says they are (his, her) favorite subjects too. Sounds l i k e you sure l i k e to do the same sorts of things i n school. You also said you l i k e (E read the two res-ponses to question 2). (M'snname) t o l d me (he, she) r e a l l y enjoys ( ) and ( ) too. I guess you and (he, she) would have a l o t of fun together as you both seem to l i k e to do the same things. And do you know (M's name) favorite T.V. program i s (E read S's response) too. You two c e r t a i n l y sound a l o t a l i k e . Well, why don't you come and meet (him, her)? E escorted the subject into the experimental room and toward the apparatus where the model was waiting. E said to the subject: (S's name) this i s (M's name). Here i s the game and i t consists of ten r o l l s of a marble down the a l l e y , l i k e t h i s (E r o l l e d marble). If you s t r i k e i t lucky the red l i g h t w i l l stay on and you w i l l win a prize of some pennies which you may keep a l l for yourself. You w i l l know when to begin your game as you w i l l hear a b e l l r i n g once and when your game i s over i t w i l l ring twice, then you can go straight back to your classroom with your winnings, i f you have any. 65 (M's name) i s going to play alone f i r s t and then (he, she) w i l l leave you alone to play your own game. O.K.? E turned and walked toward the door then suddenly turned and casua l ly s a i d : Oh, by the way, I understand there i s to be pro ject at (name of school) to help hungry Indian ch i ld ren and i f e i ther of you wish to donate any of the money you might happen to win to help these ch i ld ren you may put your donations in to the can over there (E pointed toward the can then l e f t the room and closed the door ) . Model-Neutral Condit ion (M-N) E greeted each subject and a f ter the i n i t i a l explanation s a i d : We l l , I brought along another (boy, g i r l ) who i s going to show you how the game works. Why d o n 1 1 you come and meet (him, he r ) . E fol lowed the same procedure and repeated the i d e n t i -c a l d i r e c t i o n s as i n the Model -Simi lar cond i t ion . Model -D iss imi lar Condit ion (M-D) E greeted each subject and fol lowing the i n i t i a l ex-p lanat ion s a i d : 66 Well, I brought along another (boy, g i r l ) who i s going to show you how the game works but before you meet (him, her) I thought you might l i k e to know something about what (he, she) i s l i k e . (His, her) name i s (M's name) and (he, she) i s i n grade three at a very small country school i n another province. You said i n th i s questionnaire that your two favori t e subjects i n school are ( ) and ( ) (E read the two subject names from the ques-tionnaire) . You know (M's name) says they are the subjects that he d i s l i k e s the most. Sounds l i k e you sure don't l i k e doing the same things i n school. You also said you l i k e ( ) and ( ) (E read the two responses to question 2 ) . (M's name) t o l d me (he, she) r e a l l y hates ( ) and ( ). At t h i s point E mentioned an a c t i v i t y which was the a n t i -thesis of S's response proposing i t as M's favori t e pasttime. For example, i f the S had stated baseball and hockey E commented that the model d i s l i k e d a l l sports and preferred to s i t quietly at home most of the time. Then E continued, I guess you and (he, she) wouldn't have much fun together as you both seem to l i k e to do such d i f f e r e n t things. In f a c t , you don't even l i k e watching the same T.V. program. You say you l i k e (name of T.V. program) 67 and (M's name) says t h a t ' s the one he l i k e s l eas t of a l l . You two c e r t a i n l y don' t sound very much a l i k e . W e l l , why don' t you come and meet (him, her) anyway? E followed the same procedure and repeated the same d i rec t ions as i n the Model -Simi lar and Model-Neutral cond i t ions . A f te r the experimenter l e f t the room a b e l l rang- once and the model began to play the game. The models were per-mitted freedom of verbal i n t e r a c t i o n with the subject during the course of the game. Each complete game consisted of three , f i v e , and seven pennies being dispensed on t r i a l s three , f i v e , and nine for the model and on t r i a l s two, s i x , and nine for the subject . Subsequent to each win the model expressed sur -p r i s e and excitement and counted aloud the number of pennies won. At the end of the game the model again counted the t o t a l win, moved toward the e x i t , stopped and s a i d : Oh, I think I ' l l g ive ten pennies to help the hungry Indian ch i ld ren and keep f i v e cents for mysel f . (M dropped the pennies i n d i v i d u a l l y in to the donation can) . O . K . , i t s your turn now. (M l e f t the room). To tes t the induct ion of the s i m i l a r i t y and d i s s i m i l a r -i t y dimension and to fur ther ensure secrecy regarding the procedure E asked each S_ when leaving the room: Did you l i k e the game? Do you think (M's name) i s a l o t l i k e you are? You won't forget to keep our secret now w i l l you? 69 APPENDIX D RAW DATA FOR 80 BOYS IN EXPERIMENT I (MONETARY DONATIONS) No-Model M-S M-N M-D 6 10 0 4 3 15 10 13 0 10 5 8 7 15 9 5 5 10 10 0 5 5 3 15 0 5 4 5 6 4 4 10 4 15 5 5 5 8 15 9 15 10 15 5 5 15 13 10 2 7 15 5 6 9 10 10 8 11 10 6 0 11 15 3 0 5 10 1 5 15 6 8 5 15 5 15 1 10 7 4 APPENDIX E 70 RAW DATA FOR 80 GIRLS IN EXPERIMENT I (MONETARY DONATIONS) No-Model M-S M-N 0 10 10 15 0 5 10 8 9 10 15 10 15 15 10 15 4 9 7 3 10 15 9 9 10 7 6 10 6 5 2 15 15 15 10 5 4 15 15 5 10 10 5 10 2 10 15 8 5 10. 15 15 0 10 4- 5 3 7' U5 4 0 15 15 5 4 7 15 8 0 10 5 3 3 8 15 9 2 10 6 3 APPENDIX F RAW DATA FOR 80 BOYS IN EXPERIMENT II (SERVICE TIME) No-Model M-S M-N 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 4 4 0 4 4 1 0 4 1 0 1 4 2 4 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 3 4 0 4 0 4 3 0 4 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 0 4 3 1 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 1 72 APPENDIX G RAW DATA FOR 80 GIRLS IN EXPERIMENT II (SERVICE TIME) No-Model M-S 1 3 2 3 0 3 4 4 1 2 0 3 0 3 1 4 0 2 2 3 0 4 4 3 0 2 0 3 1 3 0 3 2 4 2 0 4 3 0 4 M-N M-D 3 3 1 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 1 1 3 4 2 4 2 2 3 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 1 4 0 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104233/manifest

Comment

Related Items