Experimental psychology - Essay Example

Generally, it is expected that when an altruistic offer is made, the person to whom the offer was made will accept the offer. However, researchers beginning in the 1960s found that that altruism can elicit negative emotions in the recipient, for reasons ranging from the recipient’s perception that the aid was a threat to their autonomy to anxiety regarding reciprocity issues. Therefore, when an altruistic offer is made, it may or may not be accepted. This study was undertaken to better understand the offeror-recipient dynamic and, in particular, if there are gender differences in accepting or declining an altruistic offer and the nature of those differences. The altruistic offer was an offer from the researcher who was seated on a crowded New York City subway to the respondent to take the researcher’s seat. A total of 111 subway riders responded, 59 women and 52 men with both male and female researchers making the offer. The difference in acceptance rates between men and women was statistically significant (2 (1, N = 111) = 6.395, p = .011.) with 52.5% of the women approached accepting but only 28.8% of the men accepting. Gender norms prevailed with regard to the reasons given by the respondents for declining. Men generally gave answers such as “it would have been rude to accept the offer” or “a gentleman would not take a seat from a woman.” Women cited convenience, such as the fact that they were getting off soon. These response patterns for denials are consistent with the stereotype that men should be self-sufficient and not take help, including taking a seat, while women’s answers reflect the idea that women should be compliant not inconvenience others. Although there are limitations to the generalizability of the research, it provides much-needed information on recipient responses to altruism, information that can be used to help develop strategies to make “accepting help” more acceptable. Understanding the nature of altruistic behavior, why one person reaches out to help another, is critical as it can be used to develop strategies to promote this pro-social behavior. It is important to understand what motivates people to seek help for themselves, too. There is a growing body of literature on help-seeking behavior, particular with regard to physical or mental health (De Melo & Farber, 2005; Ybarra and Suman, 2006) or social concerns (Lipsky, Caetano, Field, and Larkin, 2006; Campbell, 2005). However, there is another dimension of helping, specifically how people respond to being helped, that is much less researched. The theory and practice behind peoples’ response to offers of altruism – how people feel when someone reaches out to them – is ill defined. It is valuable knowledge, as it can further the knowledge of psychologists, health/human service workers, or those who care for another about how best to offer help so it will be optimally received. There is some research in the field of receiving aid. Early research by Fisher, Nadler, and Whitcher-Alagna (1982) noted how aid is often perceived as a threat on the recipient’s self-esteem, and can lead to negative feelings such as failure, inferiority and dependency. The authors cite previous studies with particular conditions where the provision of aid resulted in negative responses; select conditions included when the aid was perceived as a threat to autonomy, when there were negative donor attributes and motivation, if the aid was involuntarily administered, or in situations where there was an inability for the recipient to reciprocate. Roberts et al. (1999) in their analysis of mutual help meetings, one of the most prevalent examples of persons receiving offers of help, cited a number of studies where “supportive behaviors” were actually perceived negatively or that the behaviors created negative effects. For example, they referenced research by Pearce, LeBow, and Orchard (1981) finding that women whose husband was neither supportive nor involved in the womens’ weight loss effort actually lost more weight than the women in the control group. Burleson and Greene (2003), in Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, devote valuable attention to the topic of how helpers can more effectively reach those they want to help, commenting “Getting others to understand one’s intentions is often a process and cannot be fully achieved with a single statement.” This is consistent with the findings of Fisher et. al. (1982) and Roberts et al. where recipient perceptions of donor intentions resulted in a less favorable reception to the aid. Accepting an offer of altruism, however simple the offer may be, is not always easy. This is particularly salient with gender differences in accepting aid. Gender role stereotypes in American society expect men to be independent, not to need help, to be strong and in control. Indeed, this is borne out in research cited by Harris (1995) who noted that one of the prevalent messages received by men in the United States was “Asking for help is a sign of weakness. Be self sufficient and do not depend on others.” If men are socialized to acknowledge this belief, it could be difficult for them to accept an altruistic offer. Women are stereotyped, too, from expectations of passivity to being labeled “aggressive” for simply asserting themselves. Gender role stereotypes are prevalent, and impact all aspects of day-to-day activity, including decisions such as a response to an altruistic offer. Other factors may predispose as person to accept/deny an altruistic offer. Age, in some contexts, may render a person more likely to accept aid, as there is a norm, almost worldwide, to “respect your elders.” Younger persons may internalize that they should help those older than them, and older persons may be more comfortable accepting aid. Considering the findings to date on what impacts a person’s decision to accept an altruistic offer as well as conventional gender stereotypes, the following hypotheses were proposed: Women are more likely than men to accept an altruistic offer Persons over 50 are more likely than younger (under 25) persons to accept an altruistic offer Both genders will provide accept/deny answers to an altruistic offer consistent with current gender role stereotyping The first two hypotheses were developed in line with conventional social norms, though testing is necessary to validate these points in the study at hand. The third hypothesis, assessing the reason behind the response to the altruistic offer by gender, has been little-researched to date and will provide valuable information to validate what so far has been documented primarily by observation. Discussion As hypothesized, there was a statistically significant (2 (1, N = 111) = 6.395, p = .011.) difference between women respondents versus men. Of the 59 women approached, 52.5% accepted the offer for the seat whereas of the 52 men approached, only 28.8% accepted. This finding is independent of the gender of the researcher – of the total respondents who accepted the seat, 50% had been approached by a male researcher and 50% were approached by a female. This is consistent with the findings of Nadler, Maler, and Friedman (1984) that “males would be expected to feel less favorable upon its receipt [help].” When analyzing the reasons men gave for declining, the most common reasons were coded as “insult” (77.8%) and “chivalry” (62.5%), answers possibly grounded in socialization. A man accepting an offer of altruism from another man is particularly threatening, too, “receiving help may be tantamount to an open admission of one’s relative inadequacy, and, therefore, self-threatening” (Nadler et al. 1984). It appears that social norms for expected male-female interactions were a factor for a number of respondents. Approximately 68% of respondents who cited “propriety” as the reason for their decision had been offered a seat by a male researcher and the 62.5% of men who gave “chivalry” as an answer had had a female researcher. This appears to uphold the hypothesis that gender role stereotypes do play a role in deciding to accept an altruistic offer or not. As noted by Nadler et al. (1984), “…behaviors incongruent with sex-role image have been shown to be self-threatening and avoided” (cf. Wallston, 1976)” and this appears to have occurred. Of the 39.6% of respondents who provided “convenience”-related answers, 65.9% were female and only 34.1% were male. It appears that women did not want to “put the researcher out” or “didn’t really need the seat” – answers congruent with women’s socialization to accommodate others. Indeed, “convenience”-related responses were the most common responses given by females for declining, comprising 49.2% of responses. Women, too, appeared to be concerned with social norms, as “propriety”-related responses were often given by women (68.8%) as well as “lying” (60%). Uncertainty about a reason and non-responsiveness were common when respondents declined a seat (32.3% of all decliners). Similarly, in order of frequency of response, “lying,” “insult,” and “chivalry” were common answers. Interestingly, age did not appear to correlate with increased acceptance of the offer. As previously noted, there was a marginally significant difference between those over 50 and those under 50 (2 (2, N = 111) = 5.054, p = .080) in terms of accepting the seat. This could be a function of several variables including the fact that 50 is not considered as “old” as it was several generations ago, such that a person of 55 would not consider the offer any more than a person of 25. Further, it is likely that not all respondents were truthful about their age, thus a 60-year-old might have reported an age of 45, skewing the results. In addition, New York City subway riders are likely conditioned to expect to stand, regardless of their age, so taking a seat may not be expected. The third variable studied, residence (specifically whether the respondent lived in New York City or elsewhere) yielded informative results, but of limited significance. Those stating that they lived in New York City were more likely to accept the offer of the seat than non-residents, 2 (1, N = 111) = 6.931, p = .008. However, the small number of non-residents (n=9) renders the statistic of limited value. As with all research projects, the study had limitations, the absence of random sampling for example. Another concern is the potential influence of perceived culture/race/ethnicity of either respondent or researcher or the interaction of the two. However, this issue cannot be addressed in observational field research and necessitates more comprehensive, multi-cultural research on this issue. In addition, the issue of external validity is a concern. Can the response patterns of persons from New York City be generalized to those of persons in San Francisco or Sioux City? Or, to the perceptions of altruism of persons who do not ride subways. Lastly, some may not consider offering a subway seat to be altruism. The action may appear to be altruistic and grounded in gender roles and stereotyping to some in the United States, but given regional/cultural differences (i.e., in the South, where male/female distinctions are considerably more acute and traditional) or outside the United States, it would not be altruism per se, it would be rude or culturally insensitive to accept/decline given a particular dyad. Social norms and gender role stereotypes continue to evolve. As it becomes acceptable for men to be stay-at-home parents, for women to assume positions of senior leadership in business and politics, and the traditional one-breadwinner nuclear family becomes more the exception than the rule, the gender differences in the acceptability of seeking or accepting aid will evolve, too. There is empirical research supporting, at a minimum, the health benefits for recipients of altruism (see Post, 2005). It is likely there are psychological and social benefits, too, benefits that should not be labeled or perceived as threats. Both men and women should be able to reap the benefits of “eunoia,” Aristotle’s term for “goodwill,” wanting what is good for the sake of another (Kraut, 2005). References Campbell, R. (2005). What really happened? A validation of rape survivors help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence and Victims, 20, 55-68. De Melo, J. A. & Farber, B. A. (2005). Willingness to seek help for psychosocial problems among Latino and white American college students. Psychological Reports, 97, 50-52. Fisher, J.D, Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 27-54. Greene, J.O & Burleson, B.R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates. Harris, I.M. (1995). Messages Men Hear: Constructing Masculinities. London: Taylor & Francis. Kraut, R. Aristotle’s Ethics (2005). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), E. N. Zalta, ed. Accessed 13 February 2006 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/aristotle-ethics/ Lipsky, S., Caetano, R., Field, C.A., & Larkin, G. L. (2006). The role of intimate partner violence, race, and ethnicity in help-seeking behaviors. Ethnicity and Health, 11, 81-100. Roberts, L.J., Salem, D., Rappaport, J., Toro, P.A., Luke, D.A., & Seidman, E. (1999). Giving and receiving help: interpersonal transactions in mutual-help meetings and psychosocial adjustment of members. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 841-868. Nadler, A, Maler, S. & Friedman, A.(1984). Effects of helper’s sex, subjects’ androgyny, and self-evaluation on males’ and females’ willingness to seek and receive help. Sex Roles, 10, 327-339. Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 66-77. Ray, L. (1998). Why we give: Testing economic and social psychological accounts of altruism. Polity, 30, 383-415. Ybarra, M. L. & Suman, M. (2006). Help seeking behavior and the Internet: A national survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 29-41 Epub 2005. Read More