Running head: THIS IS A SHORT (50 CHARACTERS OR LESS ...



DOES A SMALL WORLD LEAD TO A BIG HEART?

THE EFFECTS OF CONNECTEDNESS ON ALTRUISM AND INTERGROUP BIAS

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

Of Cornell University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honors

By

Ashley Eden Kirsner

May 2011

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate the effect of connectedness on altruism and intergroup biases. In the first, participants either watched a connectedness-inducing video; watched a control video; read a connectedness-inducing story; or read a control story. They subsequently completed a self-report altruism scale. It was found that those in the connectedness conditions reported greater willingness to help a stranger, though it was inconclusive whether or not the effect was entirely mediated by positive mood. In the second study, participants either watched a connectedness-inducing video or a control video, and after a few short questionnaires, they were told they were free to leave. They were then offered the opportunity to help another honors thesis student by filling out a long and tedious questionnaire. In one condition, the student was said to be an out-group member and in the other, the student was said to be an in-group member. It was found that participants in the connectedness condition were likelier to fill out more tedious questions and likelier to volunteer all the remaining time in the experiment for an out-group member than were those in the control condition. There was not a correlation between positive mood and altruism in the second study, so it is implied that connectedness, above and beyond positive mood, is what induced altruism in both studies. Future directions and implications of these findings are discussed.

Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank David Pizarro, my advisor, and Dennis Regan, my “honorary advisor,” for their always-insightful advice and their generosity with their time. Dr. Pizarro, your patience and encouragement were incredibly motivating, and your statistical insights were invaluable. Dr. Regan, your meticulous notes on the draft I sent you improved my thesis a great deal. Thank you for your dedication and genuine desire to help me improve my thesis.

I would also like to thank David Dunning for kindly agreeing to serve as my third committee member. Dr. Dunning, your insightful analyses of articles we read in your class, The Self, in addition to your obvious respect for your students’ ideas, made you a perfect candidate for my thesis committee. I am so glad and appreciative that you agreed to join.

I must also thank my statistical advisor, Jay Barry, for spending countless hours of his life joining me in picking apart the most minute details of my statistical analyses. I am incredibly appreciative of his patience in teaching me SPSS and for tolerating my multiple office-hour ambushes.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their eternal support. A special “thank you” goes out to my parents for being the only ones to out-do my excitement when I told them about my significant results. A large acknowledgement is also due to my boyfriend, Kyle Barron, for sitting with me in Mann Library for hours on end even when he did not have any work and had class the next day, for not once complaining when I didn’t do the dishes because I was busy “thesising,” and for fixing every eleventh-hour computer problem I’ve had since the beginning of my thesis.

Introduction

“Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others…for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy.” –Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein believed in the importance of helping others because he believed that all humans were “connected by a bond of sympathy.” It seems that Einstein was not alone in feeling altruistic[1] as a result of perceiving a connection to others. When an individual is in a connectedness-focused mindset[2] like Einstein was when he offered the pearl of wisdom above, it might make him likelier to act altruistically toward another individual. Previous research suggests that this might be the case, and that interestingly, this effect should increase altruism most when the pro-social behavior is toward an out-group member.

According to the current body of literature related to connectedness, individuals act more pro-socially toward people to whom they feel close, such as family members and good friends (Rachlin & Howard, 2008; MacDonald & Koh, 2003; Vasey & VanderLaan, 2010; Barber, 1994). Moreover, it has been found that people act more altruistically toward individuals who are more similar to them (Karylowski, 1975; Krebs, 1975; Emswiller, Deaux, & Willits, 1971).

This reliable finding is usually attributed to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which claims that empathic concern is the driving force behind altruistic behavior (Batson & Shaw, 1991). Empathic concern is brought about by the act of perspective taking, in which an individual takes the point of view of another. Perspective taking, in turn, is augmented by a sense of closeness to the individual whose perspective is being considered (Batson & Shaw, 1991).

In a study investigating this effect of closeness on altruism, participants thought of a near stranger, an acquaintance, a close friend, or a family member, depending on the condition (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997). The participant then described the person in detail in order to ensure that the participant was thinking about the individual. The participant was subsequently given a questionnaire containing several hypothetical situations, all involving the thought-of person needing help. The participant would then indicate the extent to which she would be willing to help the person. It was found that the closer the thought-of person was to the participant, the more altruistic the behavior she would volunteer in the hypothetical situation.

A related experiment studied the relation between the extent to which people saw animals as being similar to humans and their attitudes toward animals’ rights (Wuensch, Poteat, & Jernigan, 1991). Similarity to humans was measured by asking participants if they believed animals are able to think, are able to experience emotions, and are structurally similar to humans, in addition to explicitly asking the extent to which participants believed that animals are similar to humans. The participants were also asked a series of questions to measure their attitudes toward animals, including beliefs about animals’ basic rights as well as the participants’ actual participation in animal-rights groups. It was found that those who believed that animals are relatively similar to humans were more likely to support animal rights and were more likely to be in an animal-rights group than were those who saw animals as relatively dissimilar from humans. This suggests that the more similar someone feels she is to an individual, the likelier she is to help that individual. The trend of homophily is so ubiquitous that it apparently transcends species.

In another experiment lending evidence to the theory that connectedness induces pro-social behavior, a confederate either dressed as a hippie or dressed normally and asked people on the street to borrow a dime for a phone call (Emswiller, Deaux, & Willits, 1971). It was found that participants who were dressed in a manner similar to the confederate were more likely to offer them the dime than were participants who were dressed in a different style from the experimenter. Thus, even superficial similarities or differences between individuals, such as clothing, can influence helping behavior.

Perhaps even more intriguing is the literature providing support for social inclusion increasing pro-social behavior toward people who are irrelevant to the connectedness or similarity manipulation. A pertinent example is found in a recent paper (Over & Carpenter, 2009). The authors showed one of four sets of color photographs to eighteen-month-old infants. The photographs in all four sets featured a common household object in the foreground. However, each set had one of the following in the background: two dolls facing each other, two dolls facing apart, one doll alone, or an inanimate object. The set of pictures with the dolls facing each other was the affiliation prime and the rest were controls. After the child viewed the photographs, a confederate would walk into the room carrying a bundle of sticks that she would “accidentally” drop on the floor near the infant. The confederate would record whether or not the infant helped to pick up the sticks. Infants who saw the photographs with the affiliation prime helped the assistant three times as frequently as did infants in the other three conditions. It was concluded that even seemingly small reminders of social affiliation can have a huge impact on helping behaviors even on very young individuals, and even if the helping behaviors are not directed toward anyone relevant to the affiliation manipulation,

The corollary has also been found to be true. That is, social exclusion decreases subsequent prosocial behavior (Twenge, Ciarocco, Baumeister, DeWall, & Bartels, 2007). Seven studies were conducted in which social exclusion was manipulated by false feedback on a personality test claiming that the participant would likely die alone in some studies and false feedback that none of the other participants in the experiment chose to work with the participant in other studies (with controls of false feedback claiming the participant would likely be very accident-prone in the future, and false feedback that the participant was chosen by all the other participants, respectively). Helping behavior was then measured by how much money participants donated to a student fund, whether they would volunteer to complete more experiments without pay, how helpful they were after the experimenter knocked over a container of pencils, and whether they cooperated or defected in a mixed-motive game with another student. In all of these cases, those who had just been excluded were less likely to act pro-socially than those who had not. Furthermore, it was found that the pro-social behavior was mediated by empathy, implying that rejection interferes with emotional responses, thereby impairing the capacity for empathic understanding of others. As a result, any inclination to help or cooperate with others is undermined.

Pro-social Behavior Toward In-group Versus Out-group Members

A considerable amount of work has also been done in the area of altruism toward in-group versus out-group members. A key example is a study concerning the use of common resources (Kramer & Brewer, 1984). In the study, participants were led to believe they were interacting virtually with elderly individuals at a nearby research facility. There were two conditions: the superordinate-group identity condition, in which the idea of the collective was made more salient, and the subordinate-group identity condition, in which each participants was playing the role of a person of a different identity group. That is, in the superordinate-group identity condition, the identity that all participants shared in common was emphasized, whereas in the subordinate-group identity condition, the fact that the participants’ identities were different was emphasized. In the superordinate-group condition, students were told that the purpose of the experiment was to see “how the behavior of residents of a small community like Santa Barbara would compare to residents of other areas.” In the subordinate-group condition, students were told that the researchers were interested in “how the behavior of young people compares to the behavior of elderly persons.” In both conditions, participants then engaged in a “tragedy of the commons” paradigm, where each participant’s goal was to earn the most points while still making the resource last as long as possible. It was found that those in the superordinate-group identity condition were more likely to restrain themselves from acting selfishly than were those in the subordinate-group identity condition. In other words, participants who were reminded of their similarity that all participants lived in the same general area were more likely to act altruistically than when they were reminded of their age difference. The experiment thus lends support to the theory that people are more likely to act altruistically when in-group similarities are salient than when out-group differences are salient.

A more application-based study examined the roles of empathy and interpersonal attraction in predicting helping behavior toward in-group and out-group members (Stumer, Snyder, & Omoto, 2005). The authors studied homosexual and heterosexual volunteers who helped homosexual AIDS patients on a one-on-one basis. For the homosexual volunteers, the patients were in-group members, since both were homosexual. From the perspective of the heterosexual volunteers, on the other hand, their patients were out-group members. Questionnaires were administered to all volunteers including questions about how much the volunteers liked their patient, how much empathy they felt for their patient, and how involved they were with their volunteer work. For the homosexual volunteers, empathy for their patient was the best predictor of helping. For the heterosexual volunteers, liking their patient was the best predictor of helping. Overall, the experiment illustrates that empathy guides altruism for in-group members, but that other mechanisms are at work in inducing altruism toward out-group members.

A particularly significant study on the relevance of in-group membership to helping behavior concerns football fans of either the same team or different teams (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). The authors only studied Manchester United fans due to the nature of the experiment. They first primed participants with Manchester United and its importance to their identities. Then, the experimenter would ask the participant to walk to another building, ostensibly to watch a film clip. On the way, the participant would encounter a confederate wearing a Manchester United shirt, the shirt of an opposing football team, or a plain white sports shirt. The confederate would pretend to trip and hurt himself, and would yell in pain. The extent of the participant’s response was then coded according to their level of involvement with the confederate’s predicament. It was found that participants who encountered the man wearing the shirt of the rival team were much less likely to help the man than were those who encountered the man wearing the Manchester United shirt. Participants helped the man in the rival team’s shirt as often as they helped the man in the plain shirt. This study offers evidence for the positive effect of the target person being an in-group member upon helping behavior. Moreover, the results imply that it is in-group membership that enhances altruism, not out-group membership decreasing altruism, since the results of the out-group condition were virtually identical to those of the control condition.

Connectedness

Connectedness is proposed here to be a unique construct, separate from (though related to) empathy, sympathy, and perspective-taking. It is hypothesized that connectedness essentially makes everyone in the world feel closer and more similar to the individual who feels connected. This increased closeness and likeness to everyone should result in more empathy toward others, particularly those who were not very close or similar to the individual to begin with. In other words, connectedness turns out-group members into in-group members. When feeling connected, people are not thought of in terms of their different races, ages, or genders, but instead in terms of their common humanity.

Taking this all into account, it makes sense that people would act more altruistically toward a stranger when primed with connectedness to others, since connectedness implies both increased social closeness to the stranger as well as sharing numerous important commonalities with the stranger. This increased altruism toward strangers resulting from connectedness should be particularly visible when the altruistic act is toward an out-group member. A great deal of literature states that under normal conditions, people tend to act more pro-socially to in-group members than to out-group members (Panofsky, 1976; Mifune, Hashimoto, & Yamagishi, 2010, Stumer, Snyder, & Omoto, 2005). Since this is in large part due to a perceived lack of commonalities with out-group members, a feeling of connectedness to others should theoretically increase altruism toward out-group members. However, since in-group members are already considered to be relatively socially close and similar, connectedness should have a much weaker effect, if any, on altruism toward in-group members.

The Role of Mood on Altruism

Another phenomenon to consider in relation to the proposed experiment is that positive affect causes people to act more altruistically than neutral, and in some cases, negative affect controls. This is relevant to the proposed study because if it is the case that the connectedness manipulation also improves mood, it may also be the case that participants in the connectedness condition are acting more altruistically because of this increase in mood. A seminal paper (Moore, Underwood, & Rosenhan, 1973) was one of the first to support this claim. The authors asked 72 children to think of things that made them happy in one condition and things that made them sad in another condition, and were not asked to think of anything in the neutral control. Participants were then given the opportunity to donate money to other children in the experimenter’s absence. Participants in the positive affect condition donated more than controls, while participants who experienced negative affect gave less money than controls. Clearly, positive affect can have a bolstering effect on altruism, and this was taken into account in the present study’s statistical analyses.

Overview of Studies

The first study sought to determine if causing people to feel connected to others can induce them to feel more altruistic. In the study, participants were given a connectedness-inducing story, a control story, a connectedness-inducing video, or a control video. They subsequently filled out a self-report altruism scale. It was hypothesized that those given a connectedness story or video would report more intent to engage in altruistic behavior than would those given the control story or video.

The second study tested the hypothesis that feeling connected should lead to more behavioral altruistic behavior toward out-group members, but not toward in-group members. Participants first viewed either the connectedness-inducing video or the control video. Participants were later presented with an opportunity to help an undergraduate honors student who was or was not of the participant’s race by filling out as much of a lengthy questionnaire as they chose.

It was theorized that those induced to feel connected to others would be likelier to help an out-group member with his questionnaire than would the control group. Moreover, it was postulated that those who underwent the connectedness manipulation would be as likely to help an in-group member as would those in the control group, since connectedness should not greatly affect behavior toward in-group members.

Study 1

The first study sought to determine if feeling connected to others would increase altruism toward strangers. The experiment utilized two versions of a video, a connectedness-inducing one and a control video, as well as two such versions of a short story. After being exposed to one of these media, participants rated how likely they would be to help a stranger in various instances. Additionally, mood was measured in order to control for any effects of positive mood on altruism.

Method

Procedure

Participants either watched a connectedness-inducing video, watched a control video, read a connectedness-inducing story, or read a control story. They then completed a packet of questionnaires measuring their feelings of connectedness, their mood, and their self-reported willingness to engage in pro-social behaviors. The order in which participants filled out these questionnaires after the connectedness manipulation was counterbalanced.

Participants

A total of 93 undergraduates at Cornell University participated in exchange for extra credit in a psychology course. The data from six participants were not analyzed because each expressed suspicion about the study during debriefing, leaving N = 87 study participants. Of these participants, 21 (24%) were male. participant self-reports indicated 32 (37%) Asian participants, 3 (3%) African-American participants, 45 (52%) Caucasian participants, 4 (5%) Sub-continental Asian participants, and 3 (3%) participants who identified as “other.” The average participant’s age was 20.12 years.

Experimental Manipulation

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: connectedness story condition (N = 21), control story condition (N = 22), connectedness video condition (N = 21), or control video condition (N = 23). The statistical analyses were performed in terms of the four different treatment groups, but analyses broken down into two treatment groups, connectedness and control, can be found in the appendix. The connectedness story was Andy Weir’s short story “The Egg,” about a man who dies and speaks with God about reincarnation only to find out that everyone in the world who has ever lived or will live shares the same soul. The control story was identical to the connectedness story but with this latter conversation about the soul-sharing edited out.[3] The control video, made in 2006, was taken from and involves a man performing the same simple, joyful dance in different places around the world. The dance resembles jogging in place while pumping one’s arms up and down. The 2008 connectedness video was taken from the same website and was virtually identical to the first, but in the connectedness version, groups of locals joined in with him everywhere he went. The image of different people around the world all doing the same dance was hypothesized to induce a feeling of connectedness.

Measures

Altruism. The wording of the 20-item Self-Report Altruism Scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981) was modified to reflect hypothetical behavior instead of past behavior (e.g. “I would donate blood” instead of “I have donated blood”). The modified questionnaire was found to have acceptable scale reliability with Cronbach’s α = 0.86. For the analysis, each participant’s responses to the altruism questionnaire were averaged to create an altruism score.

Mood. McNair, Lorr and Droppleman’s Profile of Mood States questionnaire (1971, 1981, 1992) was used to measure mood. Participants rated on a scale of 1-7 the extent to which they felt various emotions at that moment (e.g., lively, unhappy, cheerful, etc.). The only item not used from the questionnaire was the mood “bushed,” since it was feared that students would not understand the out-of-date term. For the analysis, all scores on positive mood were averaged to create a positive mood index (Cronbach’s α = 0.917), and all negative mood scores were averaged to create a negative mood index (Cronbach’s α = 0.855).

Connectedness manipulation check. Connectedness was measured in three ways. First, the item “connected to others” was hidden among other mood items in the mood questionnaire. Second, participants were asked to report the extent to which they agreed with a series of statements intended to measure state-connectedness on a scale of 1-7. Since, to the author’s knowledge, there have been no previous attempts to directly measure feelings of connectedness, these statements had to be devised by the researcher. Examples of such items are, “Deep down, people all around the world are really the same,” and, “My nationality is more important to me than being a member of the human race” (reverse-scored). These were hidden among irrelevant items intended to obscure the real purpose of the experiment. However, it was found that the questionnaire’s reliability was unacceptably low (Cronbach’s α = 0.43). Finally, participants were asked three open-ended questions asking their impression of the video or passage, how the video or passage made them feel, and how they would describe the video or passage to a friend. It was recorded whether or not the participant mentioned feeling connected to others in any of their responses. This binary variable (i.e. mentioning connectedness or not) serves as a primary outcome variable of interest, though the others will also be discussed.

Demographics questionnaire. Lastly, all participants filled out a demographics questionnaire asking their political orientation (on a scale of 1-7), age, gender, ethnicity, and race.[4]

Statistical Methodology for Both Studies

As suggested during consultations with Jason Barry and Dr. David Pizarro, all variables were explored via univariate analyses numerically (e.g. means, standard deviations, frequencies) and graphically (e.g. histograms, bar charts, boxplots), as appropriate. Bivariate analyses were conducted as an initial exploration of hypotheses for relevant continuous and categorical variable combinations (e.g. Pearson correlations, Crosstabulations) as appropriate. Ordinary least square (i.e. linear) regression was performed to examine the associations between all relevant predictor variables and continuous outcome variables. Logistic regression was performed to examine the associations between all relevant predictor variables and binary outcome variables.

Results and Discussion

Altruism Score

As hypothesized, the mean altruism score for the connectedness story condition (M = 5, SD = .74) was larger than the mean altruism score for the control story condition (M = 4.52, SD = .76), and the mean altruism score for the connectedness video condition (M = 5.14, SD = .71) was greater than the mean altruism score for the control video condition (M = 4.78, SD = .74) (See Table 1). Moreover, a 2 x 2 ANOVA of connectedness/control by story/film found only a main effect of connectedness condition on altruism, F(1, 82) = 6.802, p = .011. Thus, the connectedness manipulation seemed to increase altruism.

However, an ANCOVA illustrated that, when taking positive mood into account, the effect of condition on altruism score is non-significant, F = 2.164, p = .099. Curiously, when collapsing across form of media, a linear regression taking positive mood into account yielded significant results for the effect of condition on altruism score, β = -.250, p = .038 (see appendix). One way to interpret this set of findings is that there may not have been enough participants in each condition to yield significant results when taking four conditions into account. This interpretation is consistent with the finding that the means for all four conditions were in the expected directions as well as with the finding that the p – value for the effect of condition on altruism when controlling for positive mood was not very far off from .05 at p = .099.

Connectedness Manipulation Check

As mentioned previously, there were three ways connectedness to others was measured: a connectedness index, which was the average of the participants’ responses to a series of

questions devised by the author; the item “connected to others” in the mood questionnaire, and whether or not participants mentioned feeling connected to others in their free-response questions (the experimenter was blind to condition while coding the latter measure of connectedness).

Table 1

2 x 2 for Altruism: Form of Media x Connectedness

| |Story |Video |

| |Mean |SD |Mean |SD |

|Connectedness |5.00 |.74 |5.14 |.71 |

|Control |4.52 |.76 |4.78 |.74 |

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics for Key Variables in Study 1

| |Connectedness Story |Control Story |Connectedness Video |Control Video |Total |

| |(N = 21) |(N = 22) |(N = 21) |(N = 23) |(N = 87) |

| |Mean |SD |Mean |SD |Mean |

| |Mean |SD |Mean |SD |Mean |

|Corrected Model |3.1191 |9 |.347 |3.775 |.007 |

|Intercept |.003 |1 |.003 |.036 |.852 |

|Condition |2.253 |3 |.751 |8.181 |.001 |

|Gender |.155 |1 |.155 |1.691 |.209 |

|Mention Connectedness |.035 |1 |.035 |.384 |.543 |

|Positive Mood |8.105E-5 |1 |8.105E-5 |.001 |.977 |

|Negative Mood |.377 |1 |.377 |4.106 |.057 |

|Connectedness Item on |.128 |1 |.128 |1.394 |.252 |

|Mood Questionnaire | | | | | |

|Political Orientation |.006 |1 |.006 |.061 |.808 |

|Error |1.744 |19 |.092 | | |

|Total |7.341 |29 | | | |

|Corrected Total |4.862 |28 | | | |

|1 R2 = .641 (Adjusted R2 = .471) |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

Table 6

Kruskal-Wallis: Pairwise Comparisons of Altruism Among Conditions

|Sample 1 |Compared to Sample 2 |Test Statistic |

| |Short Answer Questions |Likert-Scale Questions |Short Answer Questions Completed |Likert-Scale Questions |

| |Completed |Completed | |Completed |

| |Mean |SD |Mean |SD |Mean |

| |Freq. |% |Freq. |% |Freq. |

| |Freq. |% |Freq. |

| |Frequency |% |Frequency |

| |Mean |SD |Mean |SD |

| |B |Standard Error |β | | |

|Constant |4.393 |.735 | |5.979 |.000 |

|Positive Mood |.255 |.121 |.273 |2.108 |.038 |

|Condition (Connectedness |-.378 |.154 |-.250 |-2.459 |.016 |

|vs. Control) | | | | | |

|Gender |.169 |.181 |.096 |.936 |.352 |

|Political Orientation |.035 |.061 |.060 |.584 |.561 |

|Negative Mood |-.211 |.215 |-.106 |-.982 |.329 |

|Connectedness Item on Mood|.056 |.097 |.072 |.578 |.565 |

|Questionnaire | | | | | |

1 R2 = .214

Table 12

Logistic Regression for Mentioning Connectedness (Study 1 Collapsed Across Form of Media)

| |B |S.E. |Wald |df |p-value |OR |

| | | | | | | |

|Extremely Liberal | | |Neutral | | |Extremely |

| | | | | | |Conservative |

2. Age: _________

3. Gender: ____________________

4. Ethnicity: ____________________

5. Race: ____________________

Appendix I: Open-Ended Questions for Study 2

QUESTIONNAIRE

What was your impression of the movie/passage?

How did the movie/passage make you feel?

How would you describe the movie/passage to a friend?

Appendix J: False Debriefing Form for Study 2

DEBRIEFING LETTER

The purpose of this study was to gather information on how different videos influence mood in order to control for mood effects in a future study. In this study, we just want to make sure that this video does not alter people’s mood significantly so that if we find effects of the video on behavior in the future, we can rule out mood as a possible cause.

We want to thank you for your participation in this study. You have provided us with much valuable information about college students’ attitudes and opinions.

There are two final points we would like to mention. First, your responses will remain absolutely confidential. When the data is recorded and analyzed, your name is converted to code numbers so that only the primary researcher will be able to connect your name to your responses. Second, we ask you not to tell others about the study. The reason for this is that if potential participants already know what the study is about, this information will influence their responses, and we would obtain misleading information. Therefore, it is important that you do not talk about this study to friends or other people who may be in the study in the future, or allow them to read this feedback sheet. Please do not tell others who may have contact with potential participants. If you wish to discuss the study, please do so only with people who are not connected with the university. Thank you very much.

If you have any questions about the study, you can contact me, Ashley Kirsner, at 305-510-3710 or aek67@cornell.edu. If you have any concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please contact Susan Lewis, administrator of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), 395 Pine Tree Road, Suite 320, 607-255-5138. Thank you again for participating in our study.

Appendix K: First Page of Long Questionnaire- Tyrone

Student Researcher: TYRONE BRANTLEY

Email Address: tb67@cornell.edu

CONSENT FORM

You are invited to participate in a research study at Cornell University. The background information concerning the study, risks and inconveniences are discussed below. Please ask any questions you may have about this study with the staff members of the research project.

PURPOSE

This study aims to look at people’s behaviors, habits and attitudes. More specifically, we are trying to see if certain personality traits tend to correlate with others.

PROCEDURES

This study involves answering a series of questions that relate to how you feel about yourself.

RISKS

This study poses no known risks.

COSTS

You are not charged financially for participating in this research study.

BENEFITS

Although you will not receive any direct benefits from this study, you will contribute to the understanding of human behavior.

COMPENSATION

You will not receive financial compensation.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The information that you provide us will be, to the best of the investigators’ ability, kept completely confidential. This information includes the responses you provide us on the answer sheet, as well the information you provide us about yourself. The responses will be kept in a locked file cabinet at all times, and data stored on a computer will be password-protected.

WITHDRAWAL

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate, there will be no penalty, loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, or, if you are a student here, have an effect on your standing within Cornell University.

PARTICIPANT RIGHTS

If you would like further information regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the research staff member listed at the top of the page.

If you have any other questions pertaining to your participation in this particular research study, you may also contact the investigator of the study directly through information listed on the front page. He will be happy to answer your questions.

__________________________________ ___________________________ _______________________

Name of Participant Signature of Participant Date

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB on January 24, 2011

Appendix L: First Page of Long Questionnaire- Cole

Student Researcher: COLE WILLIAMSON

Email Address: cb67@cornell.edu

CONSENT FORM

You are invited to participate in a research study at Cornell University. The background information concerning the study, risks and inconveniences are discussed below. Please ask any questions you may have about this study with the staff members of the research project.

PURPOSE

This study aims to look at people’s behaviors, habits and attitudes. More specifically, we are trying to see if certain personality traits tend to correlate with others.

PROCEDURES

This study involves answering a series of questions that relate to how you feel about yourself.

RISKS

This study poses no known risks.

COSTS

You are not charged financially for participating in this research study.

BENEFITS

Although you will not receive any direct benefits from this study, you will contribute to the understanding of human behavior.

COMPENSATION

You will not receive financial compensation.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The information that you provide us will be, to the best of the investigators’ ability, kept completely confidential. This information includes the responses you provide us on the answer sheet, as well the information you provide us about yourself. The responses will be kept in a locked file cabinet at all times, and data stored on a computer will be password-protected.

WITHDRAWAL

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate, there will be no penalty, loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, or, if you are a student here, have an effect on your standing within Cornell University.

PARTICIPANT RIGHTS

If you would like further information regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the research staff member listed at the top of the page.

If you have any other questions pertaining to your participation in this particular research study, you may also contact the investigator of the study directly through information listed on the front page. He will be happy to answer your questions.

__________________________________ ___________________________ _______________________

Name of Participant Signature of Participant Date

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB on January 24, 2011

-----------------------

[1] In this paper, the terms “altruism,” “pro-social behavior,” and “helping behavior” will be used interchangeably; the true motivation behind the helping behavior will not be tackled in this paper.

[2] Since the psychological construct of connectedness is a relatively new one, no universally accepted definition currently exists. This paper will refer to connectedness as the awareness that all humans share a great number of commonalities.

[3] Both versions of the story can be found in the appendix.

[4] Tables displaying demographical information for both studies can be found in the appendix.

[5] When Cole was considered an in-group member for Asians, a one-way ANOVA yielded no significant results, F(3, 13) = 1.392, p = .289. Of particular interest was the lack of significant results between the in-group control and the out-group control, since previous research shows that people reliably treat out-group members less altruistically than in-group members. Thus, it was deduced that “Cole Williamson” did not serve as a sufficient in-group manipulation for Asians.

[6] Originally, altruism was going to be operationalized as the amount of time spent on the questionnaire, but several problems arose with this measure: 1. The majority of participants chose to stay for the entire time allotted in the experiment, minimizing any variance among conditions, and 2. the amount of time left in the study was highly variable based on how long the participants took to complete the first portion of the study.

[7] The mean number of short answer questions completed was below 1 because many participants only answered portions of certain questions (e.g., they would only list 4 favorite foods instead of the requested- 10), and these were coded as fractions (such as .4 in the aforementioned example).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download