1 Psychology 3260: Personality & Social Development Don Hartmann Autumn 2007 Lecture 21: Prosocial Behavior

2 Calvin the Altruist

3 References Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. W. Damon (Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5 th ed., pp ). New York: Wiley. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J. H. (1972). Affect expressions and children’s imitative altruism. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6,

4 PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Introduction Overview: Developmental trends Factors affecting the development & maintenance of prosocial behavior The altruistic personality (Shigetomi et al.) Hypocritical models (Midlarsky & Bryan) Gender differences in altruism (Abbott et al.) Next Moral Development (#22)

5 Introduction Case of Kitty Genovese Problem of definition of altruism: Motivational (intent) versus Behavioral (what did they do?) Theories: See text. Ethological Theory (we are pre ‑ wired to act altruistically) generated some attention

6 Developmental Trends Early examples of sharing and of empathic responding Age differences: Age positively correlates with frequency of altruism. Why? Older kids… understand when others are in need know how to help understanding the norm of social responsibility—help those in need

7 Factors affecting development… Factors affecting the development and maintenance of prosocial behavior modeling and reinforcement practice nurturing caregivers—think about this… role ‑ taking and empathy moral reasoning use of induction procedure

8 When Discipline Fails: Part I

9 When Discipline Fails: Part II

10 Are People Consistent in Their Altruism Does the altruistic personality exist? Replication of the famous Hartshorne, May, & Mahler study of the ’30s by Shigetomi, Hartmann, & Gelfand Basic question: Are individuals consistent across domains of prosocial behavior? Studied 279 fifth and sixth grade children in SLC School District. Altruistic behavior measured with six classroom tasks which provided participants with opportunities to help other children

11 Results of Shigetomi et al. Behavior Task (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Envel. Pict. (1) Envel. Time (2) Effic. Coop. (3) Free Choice (4) School Kit (5) Money Vote (6)---- Epstein

12 Practicing & Preaching: The Effects of Hypocritical Models Introduction During game children observed model act generously or selfishly with their winnings on 5 successful trials and exhort either generosity ("I know that I don't have to give, but it would make some children very happy") or selfishness ("I could really use some spending money this week; it makes some children feel bad to get charity") Children then played game and won on 5 trials, and were given opportunity to share… Preach Condition Behavioral Condition: % Tokens Donated

13 22 So Why Talk Further About It? What can we infer from this study? Greatest (most extreme) effects occur when conditions match (gg, rr)? Action more important than admonition? Careful now! Action Preach Condit. Condit. Char. Greed Aver. Charity Greed Average

14 Gender Differences in Altruism History: Tremendous inconsistencies. With reputational measures, ♀ > ♂ With behavioral measures, sometimes ♀ > ♂, ♀ < ♂, ♀ = ♂ So what is the trend? Depends on what review you read!

15 The Narrative Review Traditional narrative review—perhaps the fault. Problems include the following: selection of studies: What is included & what is excluded? What search engines do we use to find relevant studies? compare studies that have different methods and results: How do you compare apples & oranges?

16 Meta Analytic Reviews Favored alternative: Meta analytic review. Analogue of primary study that includes the following: systematic method of study identification (analogous to systematic method of selecting subjects in primary study) method of combining studies assessing stability of results (file drawer issue) determining moderating variables that are associated with outcomes (e.g., type of helping task, such as rescue versus donating)

17 Abbott’s Procedures Finessed the study selection procedure by using the same sample of study used in the most frequently cited narrative review Identified each test of gender difference in the 73 studies included in that review—some 195 separate tests of gender differences For each hypothesis, identified an effect size (ES)—which tells the magnitude of the difference between the sexes (M ♂ - M ♀ )/SD—IT’S A STANDARD SCORE!

18 Abbott’s Procedures Determined the statistical significance of the average ES Determined the number of null studies in file drawers that would be required to wipe out significance Coded for each study a range of study variables, including the type of prosocial behavior, age of kids, gender of investigator, SES and residency, method of measurement, type of study (modeling, reinforcement).

19 Are there Gender Differen- ces in Altruistic Behavior Abbott’s Results: Highly significant difference favoring girls (90 outcomes favoring girls, 45 favoring boys; the remainder no differences Average affect size:.047 of a standard deviation (very, very small) About 2,000 studies no-effect studies would have to be present in investigators file drawers to wash out significance (the “file drawer number). ?

20 Sometimes even a little gender difference makes a difference!

21 Summary of Prosocial Behavior Lecture Introduction: Definitions Developmental trends Factors affecting the development & maintenance of prosocial behavior The altruistic personality (Shigetomi et al.) Hypocritical models (Midlarsky & Bryan) Gender differences in altruism (Abbott et al.) Next: Moral Development (#22) Go in Peace