Incentives and Prosocial Behavior Research Paper

Human Development

The moral development stages as depicted by Kohlberg represent the key psychological theory characteristics. According to this theory, six stages of development could be identified as far as moral reasoning is concerned, based on a perspective of ethical behavior. For all of the six different stages, there is seen an increasing level of adequacy concerning responding to the moral dilemmas, relative to the precursor stages (Feist & Gregory, 2007).

In this particular regard, Kohlberg sought to follow the moral developmental stages to greater heights, more than even the age brackets that Piaget before him had sought to investigate (Sigelman & Rider, 2006). Previously, Piaget had held the claim that both morality and logic are often developed via constructive stages (Feist & Gregory, 2007). In a bid to further expand on the work that Piaget had already accomplished, Kohlberg arrived at a resolution that the moral development process was concerned primarily with justice.

In addition, Kohlberg opined that this moral development process tended to go on for the entire lifetime of an individual, (Feist & Gregory, 2007), an idea that led to the generation of a dialogue that revolved around the philosophical repercussions of this form of research (Sigelman & Rider, 2006).

Nevertheless, this theory has not been without criticism based on various points of view. Some have held the argument that the theory stresses justice at the expense of such other moral values as caring. Other critics have led the argument that the various stages of the moral development theory do indeed overlap, thereby stressing the need to argue these as distinct and separate entities (Sigelman & Rider, 2006).

Moral developmental stages

Some scholars have sought to categorize the six moral development stages as proposed by Kohlberg into three groups: the pre-conventional stage, the conventional category, and the post-conventional category (Feist & Gregory, 2007). In keeping with the stage model constructivist requirements, based on the cognitive development theory as proposed by Piaget, chances of a backward regression of the stages are quite remote, meaning that it is extremely difficult for an individual to fail to utilize their abilities at an elevated developmental stage.

All the same, it is not possible to skip any one of the various stages, as each stage is the source of a novel and vital perspective, one that is both differentiated and more comprehensive, relative to its predecessor, but each of the individual stages has been integrated with the remainder of the stages (Feist & Gregory, 2007).

The pre-conventional stage

Quite popular with the children, this stage of reasoning may also be demonstated by the adults. This is where an action’s morality gets judged on the basis of direct impacts. The stage entails the first two moral development stages, and exclusively handles the self, albeit in a manner that is egocentric (Feist & Gregory, 2007). During stage one that is driven by punishment and obedience, persons often attempt to emphasize on the direct impact that their actions might have on themselves. For instance, an activity could be viewed as wrong morally, should the perpetrators of such an action get punished.

The second stage is often driven by self-interest, and promotes the position of “what’s in it for me?” Here, the correct behavior is often defined based on that which best serves the interests of an individual. This stage, therefore, illustrates a reduced interest in the needs of another individual (s). Due to this, a mentality of “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours” develops, as opposed to intrinsic respect and loyalty for others. Theorists have regarded this stage as one that is morally relative, from a global point of view (Feist & Gregory, 2007).

Conventional stage

This is the familiar stage amongst adults and adolescents, whose reasoning hinges upon morality, based on the views and expectations of society. This level thus encompasses both the third and fourth moral development stages (Sigelman & Rider, 2006). Stage three is driven by conformity and interpersonal accord. Here, the point of entry to the society by the self is via occupation of the roles in the society. Again, individuals get quite receptive to disapprovals or approvals from other persons, seeing that this is a reflection of the existing harmony between the perceived roles and a society (Sigelman & Rider, 2006). At this stage, an action’s morality gets evaluated on the basis of the ensuing impacts, from the perspective of the relationships of a person.

Here, such elements as gratitude and respect, among others, are usually considered. The fourth stage entails social order and authority, for purposes of ensuring that a society is working in an efficient and orderly manner. Moral reasoning at this particular stage goes above a need to have the approval of an individual (Feist & Gregory, 2007). The endorsement of rules and regulations applies here.

Post-Conventional stage

Also referred to as the “principled level”, this stage consists of both the fifth and sixth moral development stages. Stage five is driven by a social contract, in which persons are perceived as the bearers of various values and opinions. Likewise, laws are not viewed as rigid dictum but are seen as social contracts (Sigelman & Rider, 2006). The final stage (six) hinges on collective moral values. As such, abstract reasoning forms the basis of moral reasoning, via the use of collective moral values. At this stage, rights are not deemed as a necessity, as deontic moral actions do not require social contracts.

Scientific research methods

The scientific methods of research are tools for the assessment of phenomena, the collection of novel knowledge, or even integration and correction of prior knowledge with respect to a given phenomena in mind. In order for a research method to be identified as being scientific, it must bear the capability of gathering empirical, measurable and observable evidence, based on certain reasoning principals (Stangor, 2007).

A scientific method therefore entails data collection via experimentation and observation, as well as hypotheses formulation and testing (Stangor, 2007). Through the use of scientific methods, we are able to offer an explanation to the occurrences of certain phenomena, theories, and also prove or disapprove hypotheses that we may have formulated in advance. In addition, practical applications also become a reality.

What is the purpose of a literature review in Scientific methods of conducting research?

In the conduction of scientific research methods, it often becomes necessary to explore and review the literature of other authors in the same field that a researcher wishes to explore. This is an important undertaking because a researcher not only gets better and far-reaching insights into the research matter at hand, but they are also in a more favorable position to explore the gaps that the previous research studies left out (Cozby, 2008).

This, therefore, may help in the formulation of research aims and objectives, besides giving a rationale behind the conduction of a research study. Moreover, reviewing the literature of other scholars assists a researcher to explore the divergent views and opinions that such scholars and researchers may hold, with regard to for example, a given theory (Cozby, 2008). Besides, it may also act as a secondary source of data for the research study at hand, along with enabling a researcher to form a foundation for discussing their research findings.

Advantages and disadvantages of using an interview

An interview allows the participants of a research study to respond to the research questions based on their individual perceptions, without worrying about preconceived opinions that may be characterized by say, a questionnaire. There is also a chance of face validity and high credibility provision on the part of participants, in addition to enabling the interviewer to further probe for additional details (Stangor, 2007).

Moreover, the interviewers are accorded the flexibility of utilizing their expertise, knowledge as well as interpersonal relationships to assess unexpected or interesting themes and opinions that participants may raise. On the other hand, interviewers may have no control over what respondents say, leading to irrelevant data and time consumption.

The method of data collection could also be highly reactive concerning moods, personalities, and the dynamics amongst persons, in comparison with say, a survey. It is also expensive and time-consuming to train interviewers, as well as to undertake an interview, not to mention the time is taken to compile, analyze the data and provide the findings (Cozby, 2008).

When would you use the correlation statistics versus ANOVA?

The reason why researchers utilize ANOVA (the analysis of variance) is for purposes of evaluating whether there are differences between two or more groups, with regard to various variables (Trochim, 2006). For instance, a researcher could be having some data regarding the performance of students in tutorial exercises, and which may not necessarily be for assessment purposes, in addition to the final students grading

In this regard, a researcher could be interested in finding out whether the performance of tutorials bears a connection with the final students’ grades. On the other hand, correlation statistics, tries to describe the level of relations existing amongst two variables (Stangor, 2007).

For instance, one could be interested in an assessment between, on the one hand, self-esteem, and height, on the other hand. In this regard, a hypothesis could be formulated to the effect that being tall, has an impact on the self-esteem of an individual.

What is the advantage and disadvantage of using observational versus self-report measures?

Observational measures may lead to an exhibition of the natural behavior of participants, once they get used to the researcher. Furthermore, this measure may enable a researcher to make use of either non-experimental or experimental design methods, thereby affording a research study variety (Cozby, 2008). Conversely, observational measures could be limited to an evaluation of behavior only, besides calling for accurate or reliable coding for purposes of attaining valuable data.

In addition, there is a possibility that the study participants could lead to the study’s objectivity loss. Self-report measures, on the other hand, may help generate data regarding ‘mental behavior’, ‘non-observables’, opinions, thoughts, intentions, plan, as well as attitudes (Cozby, 2008). Nevertheless, all this may be dependent on the honesty and accuracy that the research study participants shows towards a researcher.

A description of what goes into the discussion section of research a report

A discussion section of a researcher report is meant to facilitate in the evaluative analysis of the findings of a research study. In addition, the discussion section helps a researcher to intertwine their inputs, thoughts and opinion with those of other authors regarding the same issue, as well as to enable in the evaluation of the report findings (Stangor, 2007). It is this section that seeks to find out if the objectives of a research study, goals and the formulated the hypothesis was realized. Moreover, this research section forms the basis for realizing the conclusions of a research study.

Social Psychology

Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior takes place at such times as when one individual seeks to assist another, especially in a case whereby an individual does not have any other objective besides that of assisting another human being. Prosocial behavior has been defined as actions that seek to profit other individuals as opposed to the self or even the entire society whole (Twenge, Ciarocco, Baumeister, & Bartels, 2007).

Knickerbocker (2003) has portrayed prosocial behavior as acts of volunteering whose intention is to either profit or assist another person (s). In as much as such actions could be of enormous benefit to the individual receiving them, nevertheless, they may as well come at a price to the one giving those (Bénabou & Tirole, 2005). As such, a dilemma often exists as to whether or not an individual should be helping others, without regard for self (Simpson 2008).

While taking into account prosocial behavior, it is the explicit, external actions that are often emphasized, and not the implicit, internal incentives behind such prosocial activities. In addition, prosocial behavior includes other people’s mental as well as physical amelioration (Knickerbocker 2003).

Altruism

This is in reference to an ethical doctrine based on the fact that individuals take the actions of serving, helping or even benefiting other individuals as a moral obligation, possibly even at the prospect of a person undergoing self-sacrifice. Based on the kin selection theory, the occurrence of altruistic behavior comes about due to a genetic response that seeks to reinforce the expansive gene pool (Knickerbocker 2003).

This behavior is often thought of as being unusual, seeing that normally, an individual helps another individual so that in the future, such a gesture would be reciprocated. In a case whereby an individual performs an action that is of benefit to another individual, while at the same time hoping to derive personal benefits in the process, such an act may then not be perceived as motivated altruistically. Several various points of view as to how to define ‘interests’ or ‘benefit’ have been provided (Bénabou & Tirole, 2005).

Such a material gain as a physical reward or even money is without a doubt viewed as a type of benefit. Still, such other immaterial gains as respect, affection, satisfaction, and happiness could as well be taken into consideration. As such, volunteers of altruism may be seen as being neither rational nor accurately altruistic

Bystander effect

The bystander effect, as a social psychological phenomenon, views people as less inclined to assist their fellow humans in a situation of emergency, at a time when other individuals are within the vicinity of such an emergency (Twenge et al, 2007). In this case, there is an inverse relationship between on the one hand, help probability and the number of present bystanders, on the other hand.

What this means is that with a rise in the number of bystanders, chances that one of these could offer help becomes diminished (Bénabou & Tirole, 2005). The order of the five step towards offering help starts with an individual taking note of the occurrence of something, followed by the event’s meaning interpretation, an assumption of help provision role, how to help, and finally the provision of help (Twenge et al, 2007).

How helping behavior is influenced by the diffusion of responsibility

There is a chance that individual may as well fail to take note of an event that calls for their assistance, a failure for the identification of an event as an emergency, or even a failure on the part of a bystander to take the initiative of assuming the role of a helper. Based on behavioral studies, altruism depicts that individual behavior that enhances one individual’s fitness, at the expense of an actor’s fitness (Twenge et al, 2007). ) the kin selection theory is often utilized in an attempt at explaining such social behaviors as altruism.

This may be exhibited by the greater height to which mothers shall go to ensuring the safety of their offspring is guaranteed. The issue of altruistic behavior may also come in the form of reciprocity (Bénabou & Tirole, 2005). For example, in the animal kingdom, a monkey shall often present to fellow monkeys its back, so that they may help in picking the parasites. The roles shall over time then be reversed. Again, the statement, “you scratch my back, and I will scratch your”, applies here too.

Personality theories

Personality theories critics have often argued that personality appears to be “plastic” across places, time, moods, as well as situations. Personality changes could as well be due to medical effects, learning, diet-related, of as a result of momentous events (Feist & Gregory, 2007). Nevertheless, theories on personalities stress stability, as opposed to fluctuation. In line with this, there are various types of personality theories:

Type theories

Personality types are used to depict a psychological categorization of various kinds of individuals. It is however worthy of note that the one distinguishing factor between personality traits and personality types is that the latter takes place to various degrees. The type theories, therefore, have recognized two kinds of persons, the extraverts, and the introverts. Further, the trait theory provides that the two personalities are only a part of a longer continuum, whereby a lot of individuals may fall within (Feist & Gregory, 2007).

Trait theories

The statistical and diagnostic manuals of the Psychiatric Associating of America (APA) describe personality traits as “enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts.” (Engler, 2006). In line with this, personality trait theories takes an assumption that traits tends o be comparatively steady for a given period, varies across the different personalities, and that they also impact on the behavior of individuals.

Behaviorists’ theories

According to behaviorists, the different personalities that are there could be explained on the basis of the impact that behavior has on external stimuli (Bradberry, 2007). This was more of a drastic move, away from the philosophy of Freud. This hypothesis was put together by Skinner, who stressed on a reciprocated contact between the environment and an organism. For instance, a child may opt to cry, seeing that a similar act in the past has led to their drawing attention.

Theories of social cognition

From a cognitive perspective, behavior is seen as being guided by such cognitions as expectation of say, the world, in particular by other individuals (Bradberry, 2007). As such, the theories of social cognition, about personalities, stress such cognitive processes as judging and thinking.

Humanistic theories

According to the psychology of humanism, the main emphasis here is that individuals are often endowed with free will and that they are charged with the vigorous responsibility of establishing how they ought to behave (Ryckman, 2004). For that reason, humanistic theories emphasize personal subjective experiences, in preference to definitive and forced factors that relative establishes behavior.

Theoretical personality theories vs. empirical personality theories

In as far as personality theories are concerned, two main categories could be established here; those that are characterized by theoretical terms, and those that could be described as being empirical. Accordingly, the empirical personality theories may be regarded as those that bear observable entities. As such, the cognitive and psychodynamic theories may be viewed as bearing theoretical perspectives (Ryckman, 2004). On the other hand, the empirical personality theories could be seen as those that are characterized by entities that may not be observed, yet these enhance the predictive power of such a theory, all together.

References

Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. “Incentives and prosocial behavior”. National Bureau of Economic Research (2005):1-7.

Bradberry, T. (2007). The personality code. New York: Putnam.

Cozby, P. C. (2008). Methods in Behavioral Research. New York: McGraw Hill

Engler, B. (2006). Personality theories. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Feist, J., & Gregory, J. (2007). Theories of personality. New York: McGraw Hill.

Knickerbocker, R. L. (2003). Prosocial behavior. Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (pp. 1-3).

Ryckman, R. (2004). Theories of personality. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2006). life-span human development (5th Ed). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Stangor, C. (2007) Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3^rd Ed). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Trochim, W.M.K, (2006). Research methods. London: Knowledge Base.

Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall N.C., Ciarocco, N.J., & Bartels, M.J. (2007). “Social Exclusion Decreases prosocial behavior”. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(1), 56-66.