Aim- T o study the impact of time constraint on Pro-social behaviors.

Basic Concept- Pro-social behavior is defined as a behavior that benefits others or has
positive social consequences ( Staub, 1978; Wispe, 1972). It is a behavior that is
positively valued by the society and is generally beneficial to other people and society at
large. It may include behaviors like charity, courtesy, co-operation, donation, friendship,
sacrifice, sharing, sympathy etc. The most common pro-social behavior is helping
behaviors. It may be trivial such as picking up a dropped piece of paper for a stranger, or
substantial such as rescuing a drowning child. It may be premeditated and thoughtful as
when volunteers collect money for charity, or impulsive, as when a person rushes into a
burning car to save a trapped person. For any behavior to be pro-social, it should fulfill
the following conditions-
1) There has to be an intention to benefit the other person. Any pro-social act, which
one accomplishes by compulsion or as a requirement of a job, does not merit to be
called pro-social.
2) 2) The behavior should be considered socially desirable by the other members of
the society. For instance, helping a thief in stealing is not pro-social.

Altruism is a special form of helping behavior that is voluntary, costly to the altruist and
motivated by something other than the expectation of material or social reward. It is a
motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interest. It is
helping behavior that is beneficial to others but requires clear self-sacrifice. All
charitable, humanitarian, philanthropic activities come under the category of altruistic
behavior. Pro-social behaviors are a much broader category, which would include all the
activities for the interest of individual, society and humanity.

THEORETICAL EXPLANATION FOR PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIORS

Evolution and socio-biological theory- Socio-biological theorists propose that helping

has a genetic basis. According to the principle of Kin selection, organisms are most likely
to help others with whom they share the most genes, namely their offspring and genetic
relatives. By protecting their Kin, pro-social individuals increase the odds that their genes
will survive across successive generations and the gene pool of the species increasingly
represent the genes of its pro-social members. In this manner, over the course of
evolution, helping became a biologically predisposed response to certain situation. ( West
et al, 2002). Genetic self-interest also explains helping behavior toward friends and
strangers. According to socio-biological theorists, an organism helps another because it
expects help in return. Phenomenon termed as Reciprocal Altruism. Helping others
increases the odds that they will help us or our Kin in return, thereby enhancing the
survival of genes (Trivers,1971).
Building on the socio-biological theory, the Genetic Determinism Model suggests that
when a person observes an emergency, an unconscious desire to help occurs if he
perceives the victim to be genetically similar to himself and provides help in order to
maximize the chance of survival of genes that like those of himself,
Most of the evidence for this view comes from studies with animals and critics question
socio-biologist’s generalization from non-humans to humans. Critics point out that
cultural influences and learning could account for the evolution of pro-social behavior.
Further, in some cases, Kin selection and reciprocal altruism do not adequately explain
why people or animals co-operate. (Clutton-Brock, 2002).
However, Hoffman (1981) has drawn together a range of socio-biological and
psychological evidence supporting the idea that altruism is a part of human nature . He
proposed that the genetically influenced quality underlying altruism is empathy- vicarious
experiencing of another’s emotions. In support of this hypothesis, some fascinating
studies have indicated that we are designed from birth to respond to the distress of others,
Further it has also been found that individual differences in empathy among adults may
have a genetic basis. Hence, the concept of altruism as a genetically determined motive is
worth pursuing.
Social Learning and Normative Model- According to this view, beginning in
childhood, we are exposed to helpful models and taught pro-social norms. We receive
approval for adhering to these norms, receive disapproval for violating them and observe
other people receiving praise for following these norms. Eventually, we internalize these
societal standards for behavior and are motivated to act in accordance with them.
There are several such norms relevant to pro-social behavior. One that has been proposed
is the social responsibility norm which states that people should respond to the needs of
others and that all people have a societal obligation to aid those in need,(Fisher et
al,1981; Fellner and Marshall,1981). This norm is particularly influential when those
requiring help are seen to be dependent or lack the capacity to help themselves. Thus,
obligations to children ,the severely impoverished and disabled, the ailing elderly and the
sick are motivated by the norm of social responsibility.
Another powerful norm is the norm of reciprocity. As conceptualized by Gouldner(1960),
it states that people should help, not hurt, those who have helped them. Gouldner argued
that the norm of reciprocity is quite powerful and is essential to maintaining stable
relationships among people. People not only reciprocate help to specific individuals who
have helped them in the past but they are more likely to give help to other people as well.
Thus, we “invest” in others and expect dividends
Both the norm of social responsibility and the norm of reciprocity do not adequately
explain social behavior. There are several limitations-
1) Norms are so general that they mat not tell us what to do in particular situations,
e.g- norm of social responsibility is so broad that it can be interpreted in ways that
sometimes permit people to sidestep helping behaviors.
2) If most people in a society subscribe to such norms, how can norms explain
individual differences in helping others?
3) Two conflicting norms may seem equally applicable in a situation e.g- norm of
social responsibility is contradicted by a norm of non-involvement.
4) People often do not act consistently with the norms they hold.

However, Schwartz’s Model of Helping (1973,1977) has given a new life to the
normative approach. Instead of focusing on general social norms, Schwartz et al have
measured personal norms- the individual’s feelings of moral obligation to act in a given
way in a given situation. These feelings of obligation motivate us to help and we are then
rewarded by the recognition that we have acted according to our own moral standards.
Schwartz’s normative model of helping shows how personal norms are activated in a
situation and how additional factors must be considered before it is possible to predict
behavior on the basis of normative beliefs.
Empathy And Altruism – Several researchers have emphasized the role of empathy as
the basis of helping. Empathy refers to a complex affective and cognitive response to
another person’s emotional distress. It is the ability to put oneself in the place of another
and to share what that person is experiencing (Batson,1991). According to Batson’s,
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, experiencing true empathy motivates people to redeem
other people’s distress. In contrast, people may help because helping reduces their own
personal distress or produces pleasure over meeting the other’s needs. In this case, they
are acting with egoism- behavior motivated by self-benefit. Thus, according to Batson,
pro-social behavior can be motivated by altruistic as well as egoistic goals. Altruistic
motivation involves helping another for the ultimate purpose of enhancing that person’s
welfare. Egoistic motivation involves helping someone to improve our own welfare such
as to increase our self-esteem, avoid feeling guilty for not helping, obtain praise or
alleviate the distress we feel when seeing someone suffer.
Results of many studies support the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis but there is still no
final word on the ultimate validitiy of the hypothesis. Plausible alternative to the
hypothesis have been proposed.
For instance, Negative State Relief Model suggests that helping is based on an effort to
end unpleasant emotions that come from observing the victim’s plight. In other words,
the person provides help in order to reduce one’s own negative affect aroused by the
emergency situation. Another recent explanation is the Empathic-Joy Hypothesis which
suggest that helping is motivated not by selfless altruism but by the potential “empathic
joy” one experiences when help is provided ( Smith, Keating and Stotland,1989).
According to this hypothesis, the person provides help in order to engage in an activity
that has a successful outcome making him\her feel good.
Emotional Arousal and Attributional Model Of helping- Piliavin etal (1981)
emphasize the role of arousal in helping. They suggest that emergencies produce an
arousal that bystanders are then motivated to reduce. If a person is aroused to the point of
panic and sees little chance of accomplishing anything positive, the most direct way to
reduce arousal may be to escape from the situation. However, when the victim’s need is
clear and severe and it seems possible to be of aid without huge difficulties , arousal can
be reduced by providing help. Several studies show that emergencies are indeed
physiologically arousing and that people who are more highly aroused are more likely to
help or to help quickly.
Further, arousal alone is not sufficient to motivate helping, thoughts are also important.
The Attribution Model Of Helping suggests that the nature of an attribution for a request
for help determines a person’s emotional response and the nature of help provide.
Initially when a person is approached by a stranger, there is general physiological arousal
due to the uncertainty of the situation. In order to understand and label the arousal, the
person initiates an attributional assessment process in which the cause underlying the
person’s need for help is analyzed. If the situation is attributed to internal, controllable
causes, the emotion will likely to be a negative one. On the other hand, if it is attributed
to external causes that the victim is unable to control, emotion will be more sympathetic
and positive. Ultimately, the emotion the person experiences determines the degree to
which he\she will provide help.
Decision-Making and Cost-Reward Analysis- Latane and Darley (1970) developed a
stage model for analyzing decision-making in emergency situations. At each stage,
yes\no choices result in either a pro-social act or doing nothing.
1) Noticing the emergency event- For even the potential for helping to exist, an
individual must notice the circumstance that may require assistance of some sort.
Darley and Batson (1973) found that when a person is preoccupied by special
concerns, pro-social behavior is less likely to occur.
2) 2) Interpreting the event as one that requires help- Simply noticing an event is no
guarantee that someone will provide help. If the event is ambiguous enough,
onlookers may decide that it really isn’t an emergency at all. People are often
motivated to decide that a situation is not an emergency. Defining the situation as
a routine, non-emergency event means that no further effort is required. Similarly,
viewing other bystanders as not intervening may help bolster the interpretation
that the event is not an emergency. Such a mind-set is due to Pluralistic
Ignorance, a phenomenon in which bystanders in an emergency or ambiguous
situation use the behavior of others to determine whether help is actually required
even though no one is sure about what is happening or what to do about it.
Multiple witnesses may inhibit helping because it would be embarrassing to
misinterpret a situation. (Audience Inhibition)
3) Assuming responsibility- A pro-social act will follow only if the person takes
responsibility for providing help. When responsibility is not clear, people tend to
assume that anyone in a leadership role must be responsible. With a group, there
is diffusion of responsibility. There is also a phenomenon called Confusion of
Responsibility- a person who is providing aid is seen as the possible source of
harm as someone who is responsible for the emergency situation.
4) Knowing how to provide assistance- The kind of assistance to be offered in an
emergency is selected in part by an assessment of the personal rewards and costs
of helping. Some emergencies require special knowledge and skills that are not
possessed by most bystanders.
5) Deciding to help- Helping at this point may be inhibited by fears about potential
negative consequences. And even if their intention is to help, it might not be
effective (calling the police-phone lines may be jammed).

Piliavin et al (1981) proposed the Arousal-Cost\Reward Model Of Intervention in

emergencies. According to this model, bystanders to emergencies are emotionally
aroused and are motivated to reduce that arousal. Decision-making process enter in as
bystanders evaluate the situation and seek to reduce their arousal in the least costly
way they can. An analysis of costs and rewards leads to a decision to help or not to
help and influences the form that any assistance takes.
In emergencies and other helping situations, the focus is on cost, for the rewards are
often few. Costs of helping may include effort and time expended, loss of resources,
risks of harm, possible embarrassment or disapproval by others, negative emotional
reactions to interacting with the victim and rewards one has to forgo in order to help.
Costs of not helping include personal costs (consequences such as guilt, loss of self-
esteem, social disapproval etc.) and empathy costs (knowledge that the victim will
continue to suffer if no help is offered The model makes predictions about how a
person is likely to respond when the costs of helping and of not helping are either
high or low.
Helping behavior is not always truly rational e.g- Latane and Darley emphasize that
the steps may not occur one by one in a logical way. Emergencies produce arousal or
stress which may interfere with rational decision-making and action. Piliavin
emphasized the interplay between arousal and cost-reward analysis. Some
emergencies are so clear and severe and so arousing that bystanders act impulsively,
ignoring many cues in the situation, failing to weigh costs and rewards and behaving
in way that look “irrational” to an outsider.

Determinants of Pro-social Behavior

Situational Factors

Person in need of help

Nature of the Need- People who receive help are those who are perceived to be
dependent (perceived dependency), whose need is perceived to be legitimate
(perceived legitimacy) and whose need is not their fault and not under their control
(external attribution of victim’s responsibility).

Relationship with the potential helper and aspects of interpersonal attraction –

Relationships between relatives or friends imply mutual dependence and a special
obligation to help. Indeed, studies of tornadoes, tsunamis and other disasters indicate
that people tend to help family members first, then friends and neighbours and finally,
strangers.

Aspects of interpersonal attraction also influence helping behavior. Even brief

acquaintance, familiarity (Latane andDarley,1970), expectation of future interaction
(Gottlieb and Carver,1980), similarity in personality, attitudes and beliefs
(Krebs,1975), pleasantness (Gross, Wallston and Piliavin,1975), warmth and physical
attractiveness (Benson, Karabenick and Lerner, 1976) increase the rate o helping.

Influence of other people

Presence of others- The Bystander Effect- Study done by Darley and Latane (1970).
Students were asked to wait in a lobby. While waiting, they heard a crashing sound as
if somebody had fallen from a height. Bystander responsiveness was assessed in two
ways-
The percentage of participants who tried o help
If they did make an effort, how long they waited before doing something.
It was found that if there were more participants sitting and waiting in the lobby, it
took longer for them to provide help.
Another study done by Latane and Darley (1968). Male college students were
completing questionnaires when smoke came waffing through a vent into the testing
room. Two conditions-
The subject alone in the room-75% acted
The subject along with two passive confederates in the room who noticed the smoke
but shrugged and continued writing-38% acted
The phenomenon is called as the Bystander Effect. The likelihood of a pro-social
behavior in an emergency is affected by the number of bystanders who are present.
As the number of bystanders increases, the probability that one bystander will help
decreases and the amount of time that passes before help occurs increases. Reasons-

Social influence process- Bystanders look to others to help them interpret the
situation and may conclude that the need for help is not so great if others do not seem
alarmed or not taking action. It is called as Pluralistic Ignorance.
Audience Inhibition-Evaluation apprehension may contribute to bystander effect if a
bystander is worried about how others will evaluate his\her behavior.
Diffusion of responsibility-When several potential helpers are available,
responsibility for acting is divided. So each individual may be less likely to assume
personal responsibility for acting.
Bystander effect is most likely to occur when all three processes are operating-
-When bystanders conclude from one another’s passive behavior that nothing is
wrong, when they feel that the group’s norm is one of inaction and when they feel no
special responsibility for acting but instead diffuse responsibility among themselves.

-Action of others- What people do, their facial expressions, words and deeds can have
an impact on the likelihood of a response. Specifically, reinforcement and punishment
for helping behavior will determine its likelihood in future. If reinforced for helping,
more likely to help in future. If punished for helping, less likely to help in future.
Further, social learning also plays a role. Models remind us of what is appropriate in a
situation, shows us how to be helpful, reduce our inhibitions against acting or inform
us of the consequences of acting. If one bystander in a group “breaks the ice” and
begins to take action, others are likely to follow the lead. It is especially likely if we
see the model being reinforced.

Personal Factors

Emotional state- Good mood generally makes people more likely to help than would
normally be. This effect occurs with both children and adults, regardless of whether
the good mood comes from a success (Ishen,1970), from thinking happy thoughts
(Ishen and Levin,1972) or from any of several other positive experiences ( Salovey
and others, 1991). This may do so by setting in motion a chain or loop of positive
thoughts, which can be furthered through providing help. However, when being
helpful might spoil a person’s good mood ( possible negative consequences are
involved), a positive emotional state actually tends to result in less helpfulness.

Negative mood increases help only under certain conditions. It is most likely to
prompt help when the need for help is clear and when meaningful help can be
provided at relatively little cost, when the potential helper is an adult and has come to
view pro-social behavior as a self-rewarding activity that can be effective in negative
state-relief (Cialdini and Kenrick, 1976) and when the individual’s attention is
focused somehow on the woes of other rather than his\her woes.
Background Variables- Size of the home town is a background variable that predicts
helping behavior. Latane And Darley (1970) found that people who had grown up in
small towns tended to be more helpful than those from large town cities. Several
other studies (House and Wolf, 1978) have found lower rates of helping among city-
raised people. Stanley Milgram (1970) proposed Stimulus Overload Theory to
explain these findings. He suggests that in the face of high levels of stimulation, city
people must be selective and sometimes means ignoring people in need and being
choosy about whom to help. Korte et al (1975) did find that people in neighborhoods
with a great deal of environmental stimulation (noise, traffic, crowded quarters) were
less helpful than people in quieter, less congested neighborhoods. When we are
bombarded by too much stimulation, we may fail the needs of other people or be too
preoccupied to help them.
Another factor is having parents who serve as models of altruism. London (1970)
conducted interviews with persons who had rescued Jews from the Nazis during
World War 2. Almost all identified strongly with at least one parent who had high
moral standards and was altruistic.

Personality Traits- People who are highly helpful seem to have mature or complex
levels of moral judgement, role taking and empathy skills, strong personal norms
supportive of helping and competence and confidence in a particular situation.
Further, people more likely to help are in need for approval,, high in interpersonal
trust, emotionally positive and sociable.
Bierhoff, Klein and Kramp (1991) suggest that a combination of relevant factors
constitutes an Altruistic Personality. Five key variables are –
A) Empathy- It refers to a complex affective and cognitive response to another
person’s emotional distress. There are two important components:
a) Affective Component- An empathic person feels what the other person is
feeling. It includes being able to feel the other person’s distress, feeling sympathetic
and attempting to solve the problem.
b) Cognitive Component- An empathic person understands what another person is
feeling and why, taking the other’s perspective.
Thus, empathy means, “I feel your pain and I understand your pain”. Studies have
shown that feeling empathy for a person in need leads to increased helping toward
that person. The tendency to empathize is more in case of people who are considered
to be similar to one’s self.

Belief in a just world- Helpful people perceive the world as a fair and predictable
place in which good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished. This belief
leads to the conclusion that helping those in need is the right thing to do and to the
expectation that the person who helps will actually benefit from doing so.

Social Responsibility-Those who help express the belief that people should respond to
reasonable needs of others and that all people have a societal obligation to aid those
in need.
 Internal Locus of control- Those who help believe that they have control over their
outcomes. Those who do not help have an external locus of control and believe what
they do is irrelevant because what happens is controlled by luck, fate, powerful
people and other uncontrollable factors.

Low Egocentrism- Those who help do not tend to be egocentric and self-absorbed i.e.
they do not have an extensive concern with their personal welfare.

Gender- It has been found that men offer more help when person in need is a female
and when they are being watched. However, women offer help equally to both males
and females. Eagly and Crowley (1986) found that when faced with potentially
dangerous situations in which strangers need help, men more often help. In safer
situations ( spending time with children or people with disabilities), women are more
likely to help.

Time Pressures- Sometimes people feel that they are too hurried to help. A clear
demonstration of this effect comes from an experiment by Darley and Batson (1973).
As part of this study, individual male students were asked to walk to another building,
where they were to give a short talk. Some were told that the talk would not begin for
several minutes. Others were told that they already were late and the researcher was
waiting. As the subject went from one building to the other, he encountered a
shabbily dressed man slumped in a doorway, coughing and groaning. Results
indicated that only10% of those in a hurry helped, compared to 63% of those who
were not in a hurry.

Motivational factors- Batson And Thompson (2001) suggest that three major motives
are relevant when a person is faced with a moral dilemma
1) Self-interest (egoism)- motivation to engage in behavior that provides greatest
satisfaction
2) Moral integrity- motivation to engage in moral behavior.
3) Moral Hypocrisy- motivation to appear moral while doing one’s best to avoid the
costs actually involved in being moral.

Batson et.al (1997) demonstrated that some people simply choose to act in their self-
interest even though they realize that it is unfair. Others are motivated to act in a moral
way and do so. However, when moral integrity conflicts with self- interest, the outcome
may depend on several factors. Further, there are some other individuals who seem to be
doing the moral thing but their actual behavior is based on self-interest.

Culture – Whiting and Whiting (1975) demonstrated that children in Philippines, Kenya
and Mexico show higher levels of helpfulness than children in U.S, Japan and India.
TECHNIQUES TO PROMOTE PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
1) Encouraging Pro-social behaviors in children
Children do not have to be taught to be pro-social i.e. it is innate, for instance-
Newborns are distressed by the cries of other newborns. Older infants seem to show
primitive forms of empathy and tendencies to share and to help well before the age of
two. ( Hoffman 1975). As children mature cognitively, they are able to take the
perspectives of other people and by adulthood, to help others on the basis of empathic
concern (Underwood and Moore, 1982). Some children become more pro-social than
others. Socialization experiences play an important role.
Some of the principles of learning can be used such as-
a) Children can be reinforced for their pro-social behaviors.
b) Exposing children to models of pro-social behaviors.
c) Exposure to pr-social programming can increase pro-social behaviors ( Rushton,
1979)
d) Preaching charity can be effective especially if preaching is strongly stated and
points out reasons for giving ( Gruesec,Saas-Korlsaek and Simutis, 1978).
e) Co-operative classroom structures promote learning as well as positive
relationships among children ( Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Siker and Snapp,
1978). Eg- Putting children into small groups where each must contribute toward
a common goal will discourages co-operation and mutual helping among students.

2)Enlisting support for charities

Fund raisers can try to reduce the costs and increase the rewards of donations in the
following ways
a) Easy payment at office
b) Make donations tax-deductible
c) Encouraging donations by providing individuals with prestigious models of
donation and by putting potential donors into good moods.
d) Small gifts can be given to potential donors to make them feel obligated to
reciprocate.

3)Legislating a Pro-social society

Kaplan (1978) has analyzed laws relevant to pro-social behavior in several countries.
Countries such as France and The Netherlands hold bystanders accountable if they fail to
help strangers in emergencies.
Applying the cost\reward model of helping, we could increase helping not only by
punishing failures to help bit by reducing the costs and increasing the rewards of helping
“Good Samaritan” laws protect doctors from liability when they stop to help injured
motorists. “Secret Witness” programs allow people to call anonymity to report crimes so
that they need not fear retaliation by the criminal. Such programs also offer rewards for
useful information.

4)Experiencing a helper’s High

Some research suggests that physical responses or feelings of well-being, calmness and
sometimes euphoria occur as a result of helping other people. Such types of feelings are
generally accomplished with physical work-out. According to the results of a large scale
survey of women who had helped others in some way, the majority reported feeling an
actual pleasant physical sensation while they were helping ( Luks, 1988).

5)Teaching Moral Behaviors

People often use moral exhortation and preaching in an effort to promote altruistic
and pro-social behaviors.
Exhorting people to do good because of their underlying positive qualities is more
effective than telling people to help in order to receive an external reward.
Attributional Approach suggest that steering people toward the development of
internal attributions for their pro-social behaviors is an effective means of promoting
more helping in future. It is quite consistent with techniques used by charitable
organizations, which sometimes engineer future large donations by attempting to
obtain only tiny ones at first. Once we give a small amount, we are likely to
experience the positive reinforcement that a charity dispenses to any donor like-
Thank you note, membership card etc. Secondly, the donation of even a small amount
of money may be sufficient to allow us to modify our attribution about ourselves.
Once we have given a donation in the past, we may come to see ourselves as donors
motivated by an internal trait of generosity , as opposed to being motivated by
external prompts.

6)Values Clarification And Moral Reasoning

To instill the value of pro-social behavior, educators have developed several approaches
(Damon, 1989). Primary methods identified are-

A)Values Clarification- It is a procedure in which students are encouraged to examine

their values. The goal is to make students aware of their current values, how their values
are formed, and how their values may differ from those of other people.
A,1) Either-or-Forced choice ( Simon, Howe and Kerschenbaum, 1972)- In this
procedure teachers ask questions that raise two conflicting underlying values. E.g, “Do
you identify more with a Honda civic or a Mercedes”. Forced to choose and explain one
of the two alternatives, students find that their underlying values come to the surface. In
addition by producing cognitive conflict btw particular values, the technique may provide
insight into the assumptions about pro-social behavior that students hold.
Drawbacks
It doesn’t provide them a means to resolve underlying conflicts.
It doesn’t teach new values.

B) Moral Reasoning- It is a direct means for promoting pro-social values in schools. By

improving people’s reasoning powers, we can ultimately induce them to behave in more
pro-social way.
B.1) Discussion of Moral Dilemmas (Reimer, Paolitto and Hersh, 1983)- Students who
are forced to articulate their moral reasoning and to hear the conclusion reached by others
are better able to come to grips with the complexity of the issues entailed by moral
dilemmas. The cognitive conflict created leads to better understanding of other students’
logic and perspectives.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Age and Sex differences in young children’s pro-social behaviors.

A recent review of the literature (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998) suggests that young
children’s inclinations to engage in pro-social behaviors appear to increase with age
(Bartal et al 1980, Eisenberg and Mussen 1989; Radke-Yarrow et al, 1983). Research
indicates the frequency of pre-schoolers’s pro-social behaviors is fairly low, remains
fairly stable during the preschool years and then increase in late childhood (Eisenberg &
Fabes, 1998, Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989 ; Hay 1994 ; Hay et al,1991 ; Mussen &
Eisenberg 1977) Around early adolescence, the rate of pro-social behavior appears to
stabilize and reach a level maintained through adulthood.
More controversial than age differences in pro-social behaviors are results suggesting
possible differences in the tendencies to engage in pro-social behaviors of boys and girls.
Previous research regarding, sex differences in young children’s pro-social behaviors
have identicated that girls are more likely than boys to care for, comfort, or share with
other children ( Feshbach 1978; Harris & Seibel 1975; Lennon & Eisenberg 1987; Moore
& Eisenberg 1984; Musssen & Eisenberg 1977; Radke-Yarrow etal 1981). In contrast,
other research has not observed significant sex differences in the frequency of pro-social
behavior by young children.

Results of a recent meta-analysis by Fabes & Eisenberg (1996; cited and presented in
Eisenberg & Fabes 1998) suggest explanations for age differences in children’s
tendencies to perform pro-social behaviors appear to vary as a function of many factors
beyond their age and sex, such as the age and sex of the target person, the type of pro-
social behaviors to be performed, the presence of an adult observer, the mixed findings
indicate other variables may impact pro-social tendencies.

Indeed explanations for patterns of age and sex differences in young children’s pro-social
behavior have emerged (Feshbach 1971) for instance, rather than one group of children
(Eg: girls, boys, pre-schooler, elemantry aged children, acting more pro-social than
another, it may be that young children act pro-socially more after toward children whom
they find similar to themselves(Eg: same sex children) or with whom they have greater
social experience (Eisenberg 1983; Karabenick et al 1973; Will et al 1977).
Leahy(1983) points out that preferential pro-social behavior toward same sex targets is
especially notable in young children. Consistent with this claim, Ladd et al (1983) found
kindergartens helped same sex more than other sex peers. In addition, research shows that
pre-schoolers receive more pro-social behaviors from same sex than other sex peers
( Ladd et al 1983; Leahy 1983).

Analogously, Zeinser et al (1981) observed that White pre-schoolers demonstrated

greater sharing toward White children than African-American children. Thus, similarity
between the sex and race of performer and the target of pro-social behaviors is an
important factor affecting young children’s tendencies to engage in such conduct.
Nevertheless, little research has specifically tested this notion.
A study by Zinser et al (1981) which studied only the pro-social behavior of sharing,
research has not explored young children’s pro-social behaviors toward children of
different races.
Since what pre-schoolers appear to share more with while their African-American
children (Zinser et al, 1981). It is reasonable to consider whether white children may act
pro-socially more often toward White children than African-American children simply
because they prefer same race over other race peers.

HYPOTHESIS:

VARIABLES:

Independent Variable: The two conditions are:

- With time limit, and
- Without time limit

Dependent Variable : Participants pro-social behavior.

Controlled Variable:
-Nature of the task
-Gender of the accomplice
-Participants and accomplice should not be familiar with each other
DESIGN:

CONDITION-I (With Time Limit) CONDITION- II (Without Time Limit)

-E’s accomplice is briefed about her role. -E’s accomplice is briefed about her role.

The naïve participant and the accomplice
are made to sit with each other, such that
the naïve participant is seated in the
middle, on E’s left hand side.
-One design is demonstrated to both of
them.
-Two minutes are given to both the
accomplice and the participant to complete
10designs using 4blocks from Koh’s Block
Design Test.
-Accomplice takes longer than the
participant to complete the designs.
-After about 45seconds, the accomplice
asks the participant to help her on making
the design.
-After about 1minute 30seconds, the
accomplice again asks the participants to
help her in making the design.
-Participants behavior is recorded.
-No feedback
-Debriefing the participant
The naïve participant and the accomplice
are made to sit with each other, such that
the naïve participant is seated in the
middle, on E’s left hand side.
-One design is demonstrated to both of
them.
-No time limit is given to both the
accomplice and participant to complete
10designs using 4blocks from Koh’s Block
Design Test.
-Accomplice takes longer than the
participant to complete the designs.
-After about 45seconds, the accomplice
asks the participant to help her on making
the design.
-After about 1minute 30seconds, the
accomplice again asks the participants to
help her in making the design.
-Participants behavior is recorded.
-No feedback
-Debriefing the participant

PREACAUTIONS:

-The task should not be too difficult.

-The time limit in condition-I should be such that participants cannot complete all
designs.
-All materials required should be kept behind the screen.
-Working of the stop watch should be checked before calling the subject.
-Proper light and ventilation in the laboratory.
-Noise and distraction to be minimized.
-Screen should be placed such that the experimenter can observe the participant and
record observation comfortably.
-The accomplice should be made very comfortable with the role.
-The accomplice must work slower than the participant at all time.
-The participant must not be familiar with the design of the experiment.
-No rest pause is to be given in between.
-No feedback should be given to the participant during the experiment.
-Participants should be randomly assigned to the two experimental conditions.
-Participants must be de-briefed after the experiment and requested to keep the design
confidential.
-The subject and accomplice should not be familiar.

MATERIAL REQUIRED:

-Using 8blocks from Koh Block Design Test.

-Test booklet containing 10designs and 1 for demonstration.
-Stop Watch
-Screen, data sheet, pen, pencil.
-Paper for experimenter’s observation.
-Introspective reports.