.THS

SRF - :STEiM AND ALTRUESM iN BLACK
FEFEH $R‘.E£RS

Thesis for ‘ihe Degree sf M. A.
aficmgm STATE UNIVERSETY
LEON L ANDfiRSON
3491475

 

,mgx‘g Q; 5; 2004

 

ABSTRACT

SELF-ESTEEM AND ALTRUISM IN BLACK
FIFTH GRADERS

By

Leon L. Anderson

This study was an attempt to examine the relationship between
self-esteem and gender on altruism, i.e., subjects scoring low on
self-esteem inventory would be expected to obtain significantly lower
altruisnl scores than those subjects with high self-esteem scores and
boys lower scores than girls. The testing instrument for measuring
self-esteem was the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory. A behavioral
measure for altruism was developed by the author.

The self-esteem inventory was administered to pupil in two
fifth grade classes in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Those subjects scoring
in the upper l5 percentile were considered high in self-esteem (4
males and 4 females) whereas those scoring in the lower 15 percentile
were considered low in self-esteem (4 males and 4 females).

These high and low self-esteem subjects were also tested for
altruism by awarding them 23 cents for doing a small task and asking
them to donate some of the earnings to a ”needy child."

It was hypothesized that: (a) Subjects scoring low in self-

esteem on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory would score low on

Leon L. Anderson

the behavioral measure for altruism. (b) Females would be more al-
truistic than males in both high and low self-esteem groups. Results

did not provide support for either of the hypotheses.

SELF—ESTEEM AND ALTRUISM IN BLACK
FIFTH GRADERS

By

Leon L. Anderson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

College of Social Sciences

1975

To my Parents

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. Charles Hanley, adviser and
chairman of this thesis committee, for his being available to give his
understanding, support, and guidance via the process of this research.
A thank-you also goes to Dr. Gary Stollak and Dr. Lawrence Meese for
their encouragement and support.

I would especially like to thank Mr. John Russ, principal
at University Terrace School who offered lots of time and cooperation
for without it this study would have been somewhat impossible to
complete.

A personal thanks goes to my friend Sophie L. White who in
many ways have inspired me to strive for personal and academic growth.

Thanks to all the black children who participated in this study.
They all were beautiful.

A special thanks goes also to Fred Fallik for his rewarding

stat consultations.

It seems that some of us are so
afraid to get involved . . .

As if the giving, taking and
sharing weren't worth the

risk of uncertainty.

father wilbert m. white

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................... vi
INTRODUCTION ........................... 1
METHOD .............................. 16
RESULTS ............................. 20
DISCUSSION ............................ 22
SUMMARY ............................. 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 26
APPENDICES ............................ 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Self-Esteem means and standard deviations ........ 17
2. Means and standard deviations for gender and

self-esteem related to altruism ........... 20
3. Analysis of variance of gender x self-esteem 2]

for altruism .....................

vi

well, and views himself as a model to others. On the other hand,
Rosenberg (l965) found self-contempt, self-rejection and self-
dissatisfaction indicative of low self-esteem. When these factors
are present in the self, there is a lack of self-respect. In the
picture the individual paints of himself he wishes it were otherwise.
Low self-esteem deals with expressions of disappointment with self
for failing to possess abilities or attributes which the individual
desires to have.

Parental Influence on the Development
of Self-Esteem in the Child:

 

The mother figure can instill either a "good-me" image through
her approval of the infant or a "bad-me“ image through her disapproval.
The self-esteem of the "good-me" is quite content-free and dependent
upon attributes approved of and encouraged by the mother figure. Parents
and significant others define and evaluate the person so that later the
person can evaluate himself (Sullivan, 1953).

Erikson's (1959) perception of self-esteem emphasizes successful
resolution of each of the epigenetic crises in the life cycle. After
each resolved crisis self-esteem is confirmed, and the overall sense
of ego-identity accrues after adolescence. The individual's self-
esteem may be based on any or all of the major dimensions built into
Erickson's theroretical system: trust, autonomy initiative, industry,
ego-identity, intimacy, generativity, and integrity. White (l967),
on the other hand, conceptualized self-esteem as the cumulative sense

of competence. Grasping and exploring, crawling and walking, attention

and perception, language and thinking, manipulating and changing the
surroundings, all promote a competent interaction with the environment.

Self-esteem for Coopersmith (1969) refers to the "evaluation
which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to
himself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval and
indicated the extent to which the individual believes himself to be
capable, significant, successful, and worthy.” It is an evaluative
statement which the individual holds toward himself. Coopersmith
views parental attitudes as the key factor in developing high self-
esteem. In his study with 1,748 normal middle-class boys, he found
those boys who were self-confident and maintained an optimistic
outlook on life came from families: (a) where the parents were
genuinely interested in their children--their activities, friends,
and interests; (b) where high standards of behavior were set with
strict and consistent rules of enforcement with rewards rather than
corporal punishment as a disciplinary technique; (c) that allowed
children to have an active voice in decision-making and where parents
kept themselves open for additional suggestions.

According to Coopersmith, (1969) positive, favorable self-
concepts and feelings of self-esteem are necessary conditions for
personal happiness and effective social functioning. Youngsters
possessing these characteristics are active, self-confident, and
independent. They express themselves freely and spontaneously
experiment with new ideas and activities and approach people without

fear. They seemed to approach any given task with the expectation

of success. In contrast, children lacking self-confidence tend to be
anxious, apprehensive, inhibited about expressing their own opinions,
self-conscious, and withdrawn. They feel helpless, lonely, and inferior,
devaluing themselves and their accomplishments. Furthermore their
social interactions are limited, their initial school adjustments are
difficult, and their academic work is discouraging to them. From an
extensive interview, data showed that parents of high self-esteem
children established a reasonable balance between protectiveness and
support on the one hand, and the encouragement of independence and
autonomy on the other. Mothers of children low in self-esteem tended
to be emotionally distant and rather inattentive and neglectful in
their treatment. Low self-esteem children tended to be either indif-

ferent or hostile to their parents.

Altruism

Presently, the confusion in research regarding altruism resides
in the concept itself which covers a diversity of responses, such as
sharing, helping, defending, rescuing, sympathizing, and more.

In orthodox psychoanalytic theory, guilt and anxieties are
viewed as the substructure of the individual's altruism. Anna Freud
(1937), for example, stated, "Altruism arises from inhibition and
deprivation, from reaction formations to agressions, or from the
expiative dynamics of guilt." Glover (1925) conceptized altruism
as deriving from oral character traits. Fenichel (1945) related it
to homosexuality and castration anxiety. There is present some

difficulty in explaining alturistic behavior and other adaptive

undefensive behaviors (Maddi, 1968). An individual who is altruistic
and is unaware of it, because of generalized guilt which precluded
awareness of his own impulses, and desires, can be interpreted in
psychoanalytic terms as showing "reflection of repression and self-
denial or perhaps a means of making restitution for transgressions
dimly felt to have been committed in the past"(Maddi, 1965).

In learning theories, "identification" process have been
stressed as factors in the young child's acquisition of the adult's
prosocial and moral behaviors. Still, acts of helping and sharing,
like other responses, are acquired as the result of specific reinforce-
ments. Much of the research deriving from Fruedian theory and learning
theory has focused on how we come to inhibit impluses to restrain from
anti-social behavior, to resist temptations; all devices for dealing
with the negative sources of altruism.

Berger (1962) on the other hand, viewed altruism as, "an
assumption to be based upon concordant vicarious instigation where
both performer and observer emotional responses are positive." The
notion of vicarious reinforcement in explaining social modeling and
other imitative processes are employed by social learning theorist.
Bandura (1965) found there is considerable evidence to suggest that
observer behavior changes as a consequence of witnessing the reward-
cost contingencies associated with a performer's behavior.

Social models are influential in producing charitable
responses in children. It was demonstrated by White and Rosenhan
(1966) that the observation of a charitable other will facilitate

donations of gift certificates to a fictitious orphanage. Ugurel-

Semin (1952) found that the sharing of peanuts by young children
correlated positively with age and family size. Fischer (1963)
argued that sharing behavior is essentially giving up one reward

for the promise of another. In his study, the giving of marbles to
an unknown peer was facilitated when the subject was reinforced with
bubble gum. Generosity was affected by how many marbles were avail-
able to share but not by how many marbles the subject had won on
previous days of testing.

Empathic responses can be directly conditioned by pairing
positive-affect arousal in the giver with expressions of joy in the
recipient (Aronfreed and Paskal, 1965). The recipients' expressive
cues of gratitude became an additional stimuli for positive-affect
arousal which reinforced the child for his self-sacrifice. The
conditioning of positive affect to the observations of the pleas-
urable consequences of the act for the beneficiary can be attributed
to altruisitic behavior. Data support the suggestion that sacrificing
behavior can be enhanced by attaching, through contiguous association,
positive affect in the donor with expressions of joy in the receiver.
Pairing expressions of joy by the experimenter with the hugging of
the subject elicited more subsequent sacrificing of M & M candies than
administration of either the hug and joy response alone.

Midlarsky and Bryan (1967) used procedures similar to those
of Aronfreed and Paskal (1965). They studied the degree which children
internalized charitable behavior and the importance of patterning

expressive cues combined with affect arousal. The study was designed

to assess the role of affective arousal and expression of joy upon
subsequent donation behavior. No attempt was made (unlike Aronfreed's
and Paskal's study) to control the patterning of the expressive cues
and the hug response. They failed to find any difference between the
number of self-sacrifical and charitable responses of elementary school
girls observing a model who elicited expressive signs of joy after
making self-sacrifical choices or a model who did not. Harris (1968),
using an age group similar to that of Midlarsky and Bryan, find a
difference between the altruistic behavior of children who were exposed
to models and praised for their altruism and those who were not. Social
models are influential in producing charitable responses in children.
It was demonstrated by White and Rosenhan (1966) that the observation
of a charitable other will facilitate donations of gift certificates

to a fictitious orphanage.

Both on the empirical and theoretical level, it is evident
that those people who elicit altruistic behaviors make sacrifices for
no apparent material or personal gains. The problem of reinforcement
in altruistic behavior is concerned with two basic issues. One is,
whether in the absense of positive reinforcement self-sacrifical
behavior will be continued. The other issue is concerned with whether
the average person includes altruistic behavior another that gain
rewards. This second issue is a matter of attribution. There is
little or no research which directly concerns attribution of altruism
in situations of varying rewards. Kohlberg's (1963) research seems
relevant. He outlined three stages in the development of moral

judgement:

Stage I: judgements are made on the basis of the
hedonic consequences of an act (whether
it elicits reward or punishment from
external sources).

Stage II: morality is a function of the approval
and disapproval of others.

Stage III: behavior is judged in relation to internal

standards of reciprocity and justice.

Berkowtitz (1963) and his colleagues demonstrated that helping
behavior in college students leaned more toward dependent than inde-
pendent others, even though possibilities of rewards were remote.
Schopler and Basteson (l965) replicated their study and also found
that dependency elicits helping behaviors in spite of absence of
externally administered reinforcement.

Huffman (1963) speculated a possible basis in parental treat-
ment concerning the development of "consideration for others" in young
three-year olds. Using familiar division into affective, conative
and cognitive categories he hypothesized that children will begin to
alter their behavior out of consideration for others to the extent
that they have a generally positive affective orientation toward
others, can control impulses, and are aware of the needs of others.
These prerequisite characteristics Huffman described can be traced
to aspects of child-rearing pattern. First, positive affective
orientation should result from parental acceptance. The child given
parental affection and allowed considerable impulse expression is
less likely to be driven by unfulfilled emotional needs and by pent-

up hostility, which could either blind him to the needs of others or

lO

sensitize him to others for his own selfish means. Acceptance from
parents generates positive feelings toward himself and others and pro-
vides a positive model for the child to identify. Second, the ability
to control one's impulses (conative aspect) in consideration for others
results from the type of parental discipline which directs the child's
attention to the consequences of his action for other people and
provides a model in the form of self-restraint. Finally, awareness

of others and their needs (cognitive aspect) results from parental
discipline that directs attention to the needs of others.

In Huffman's study, data concerning parental treatment were
obtained from interviews and direct observation of mother's behavior
toward their children. "Scores" were found for acceptance, consequence-
oriented discipline, and other oriented discipline. Acceptance was
expected to relate positively to the child's general affective orien-
tation of friendliness. Findings suggested four behavior systems in
the young child which may be differentially influenced by parental
practices: affective orientation, determined mainly by parental
acceptance; hostility and related drives, instigated mainly by power
assertion; impulse control, fostered mainly by love-withholding
disciplines in a non-power assertive context; and consideration for
others fostered mainly by other-oriented discipline in a non-power
assertive context.

The child at some period of his life experience contradictorily
practiced and valued acts of altruism. His acts of kindness are

diversely evoked out of fear, obligation, expectations of reward,

ll

wanting to be like the adult, or genuine concern for the person in need.
Parents who are concerned about the welfare of others proceed in various
ways toward the socialization of their children. Parents typically
teach principles of altruism (which one should do and its expected

to do) more than model the practices. This is one kind of moral
training parents transmit to their children. There is another kind

of training which parents teach principles and also exemplify them in
living.

Research using adults and older children as subjects have
examined variables in the situation or in the person that momentarily
alter or govern altrustic responses. Experimental procedures to
arouse feelings of guilt (Darlington and Macher, 1966), and obligation
(Wilke and Lanzetta, 1970) increased helping reactions from the sub-
jects and resemble processes that could have occurred in childhood
and resulted in similarly motivated helping. In a naturalistic study
(Rosenhan, 1969) social workers who were more altrusitic reported
having closer ties with parents who were themselves involved in
altruistic causes. These workers grew up identifying with nurturing,

altruistic parent-models.

Variables Associated with Altruism

 

The variables associated with altruism can be ordered along
two dimensions. The prototypical altruistic situation involves some—
one who gives (a benefactor), and someone who receives (a recipient).
The independent variables then can be divided into those which relate

to characteristics of the benefactor, and those which relates to

12

characteristics of the recipient. It is true that all these variables

ultimately affect the benefactor, but this effect is often achieved

by altering characteristics of the recipient.

There are four levels of generality which research on altruism

has manipulated independent variables (Gouldner, 1960). These levels

are:

Level I

Level II

Level III

Level IV

Involves temporary psychological states, such
as those that accompany experiences of success,
failure, dependency interpersonal attraction,
and the observation of models. A great deal

of research on altruism relates to state vari-
ables by which these variables are easily
manipulated in laboratory experiments. The
state type of variables are largely situational.

Involves personality traits, such as, cyclothymia,
need for approval, and conservatism. These

traits seem to correspond to the characteristic
states of people. Trait variables examined in
studies are usually less manipulatively experi-
mental than those studies which.examines state
variables. Rating-scales or questionnaires

are correlated deriving measures of personality
traits with an index of altruism.

Involves social roles and demographic variables
such as social class, age, and sex by which the
level of generality is even greater. These
variables differ from trait variables because
they are more general, permanent, and basically
characteristic.

Deals with social norms; norms such as the norm
of social responsibility and the norm of recipro-
city. It can be argued that internalized social
norms are too general because they supply no
information about the variance of incidences of
altruism. Their effect may be of interest only
when it relates to temporary states, personality
traits, and general social roles.

13

Age Differences in Altruism

During the preschool years altruism increases, (Gewitz, 1948;
Hartup and Keller, 1960; and Walters, 1957). The range of children's
ages in the peer group is a situational factor which relates to the
frequency of such behaviors. Helpfulness and sympathy are displayed
in preschool children much less often than they manifest simple positive
social overtures.

Between nursery-kindergarten years and pre-adolescence a marked
increase of sharing behavior occurs from age 6 to 8 (Handlon and Gross,
1959; Ugurel-Semin, 1952). The number of pennies given to a partner
increased from kindergarten to the fourth grade (Handlon and Gross,
1959). Midlarsky and Bryan (1967) found more self-sacrifical reSponses
made by third and fourth graders in a control condition exceeded that
made by first and second graders. It was found that fifth-grade
children gave more to charity in a control condition than children
in the fourth grade (Harris, 1968). Staub (1968) found an increase
in sharing from the fourth to fifth grade after an experience of success,
but in the case where the child experienced failure a tendency to
decrease in sharing became obvious.

Wright (1942) found also that sharing in children was related
to age. In this research, she used thirty-six eight year-olds and
thirty-six eleven year-olds. Each child was introduced to eight toys,
four of these toys were considered ”very attractive." Each child was
instructed to share four of these toys with a second child. Responses

were categorized into generous, fair, or selfish. The former was more

l4

frequent of the older age group, the latter of the eight year-olds.
Through the first decade of life it is clear that generosity increases
with age. Older children are more generous than younger children because
they may be shifting the basis of moral judgment from a hedonistic
position to one emphasizing social approval (Kohlberg, 1963).

While much of the research relating to age and altruism is not

entirely consistent, there is support in the literature the notion that
altruism increases with age. Some studies have failed to find an age-
dependent increase in altruism when generous models were introduced.
No consistent age-dependent increased in altruism were found in the
modeling conditions in the Midlarsky and Bryan (1967), Aronfreed and
Paskel (1968), and M. Harris (1968) studies. Models seems to influ-
ence younger children more than older children and thereby counter

the effect of a developmental increase in altruism.

Sex Differences in Altruism

Of 17 studies that examined children of both sexes in relation
to altruism, 11 found no sex differences. Of these studies, two
reported main effects that approached significance (p < 10) (Grusec
and Skubiski, 1970; White, 1967).

Studies using nursery school children found no sex differences
in altruism. However, some investigators who used elementary school
children as 55 found a greater incidence of altruism in boys than girls,
and some found the reverse. Fourth and fifth grade girls were more
altrusitic than boys after a few days delay, especially when altruistic

responses were rehearsed (White, 1967). Rosenhan and White (1967)

15

found a tendency for fourth and fifth grade boys to give more than
girls after prior contact with a female model when the model was not
present during the giving period. There is more in the literature to
support the notion that females are more altruistic than males, how-
ever, these findings are not consistent. There are no clear trends
in the conditions which affect sex differences in altruism in
children.

Findings from various researchers (Coopersmith, 1969 and
Rosenberg, 1965), suggest that children who manifest high self-esteem
think of others also in a positive way. Therefore, it was predicted
that children who viewed themselves in a positive manner would also
be willing to share, rescue, help and sympathize with other children
(i.e., would be more altruistic). In addition, sex differences were
reported by other investigators (Rosenhan and White, 1967), on
altruistic behavior. Although tese findings were not conclusive,
(White, 1967; Grusec and Skubiski, 1970), they lend support for the
predicted results; i.e., girls in the fourth and fifth grade should
tend to be more altruistic than boys.

The following hypothesis were tested in this study:

(1) Self-esteem will be positively related to altruism
in fifth-grade children.

(2) In the fith grade, girls will be more altruistic
than boys.

II. METHOD

The subjects were members of two fifth—grade classes in The
University Terrace School, a predominately black elementary school

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All subjects were black and ranged in

age from 9 to 11 years.

Instruments

 

Self-Esteem:

 

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SE1) measured self-
esteem. The scale (see Appendix A) contained fifty-eight items. The
subjects checked "Like Me” or "Unlike Me" for each of the 58 items.
The SEI assesses general levels of self-esteem. It has been used on
both male and female subjects ranging in age from nine years to adult
level. Statements indicative of high self-esteem are: 2, 4, 10, 11,
14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 45, 57. Low self-esteem items
are: l, 3, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42,
43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58.

Altruism:

Altruism was measured by the amount of money each S gave to
a fictitious "needy child." Each subject was given 23 cents, (2
nickels, 1 dime, and 3 pennies), for performing a task in helping the
teacher, who was absent from the situation. The task was to place

16

17

book cards back in 15 books according to authors and titles. When
it was completed, the child was awarded 23 cents and invited to
contribute some of the earnings to a ”needy child." Each S was

tested separately.

Procedure

There were two phases in this study. In the first phase each
class answered the Coopersmith self-esteem questionnaire. Pupils were
asked to place their full name and sex (boy and girl) on the answer
sheet.- The following instructions were given:

"If the statement describes how you usually feel, put a check
in the"Like Me" column. If the statement does not describe how you
usually feel, put a check in the column "Unlike Me." There are no
right or wrong answers."

Those subjects scoring in the upper 15th percentile were
considered high in self-esteem and those in the lower 15th percentile
low in self-esteem. Eight subjects (4 males and 4 females) were
chosen from each of the two extreme groups to participate in the
second phase of the study. Table 1 shows their self-esteem means

and standard deviations in all four groups.

TABLE 1.-—Se1f-Esteem Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

Self-Esteem Group Sex Self-Esteem Mean Standard Deviations
High Male 84 6.32
Female 85 7.61
Low Male 32 2.82

Female 35 3.46

 

18

Examination of the table reveals that both the means and 5.0.
of males and females high in self-esteem are compatible. The low
self-esteem males and females show a similar mean and variability
pattern.

The second phase began with the teacher introducing experi-
menter to subject, saying that the child had been chosen to help with
a small job in another room. The child was taken to another room at
which time it was explained that "a teacher started putting book
cards in the books on the table but was called to the office for
important business, however, she asked me to find a person who could
finish the job and that she left 23 cents to be paid to you after
finishing the job." The child was told that for each book there was
a card available with titles and names of authors on them and the job
was to place these cards in the books. Each card was to match the
title and author on each book. The experimenter left the room after
instructions were given. When the task was completed and the experi-
menter re-entered the room, the subject was awarded the 23 cents.

The experimenter then asked if the subject wanted to share
some of the money with a "needy child." The needy child was described
to each subject as a poor child who didn't have toys, enough food,
nor clothes like other children. A donation box labeled "Needy Child"
and an envelope was present in the room. The experimenter explained
that if the subject wanted to give anything, to put it in the envelope
and drop it in the box. It was mentioned that it did not matter how

much was given and that one didn't have to give anything if one didn't

19

want to. Experimenter then left the room so the subject could make
a decision without additional pressures. Other envelopes with money

in them were planted in the box.

III. RESULTS

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the relation-
ship between self-esteem and gender on altruism. The initial subject
pool consisted of 55 black elementary school pupils in a medium size
town in a southern community. From the initial subject pool of 28
males and 27 females (N=55), two groups were further defined as being
high in self-esteem (4 males and 4 females) and low self=esteem (4
males and 4 females). These two groups (high self-esteem and low
self-esteem) were further tested for altruism. It was hypothesized
that: (a) self-esteem is positively related to altruism in fifth-
grade children; and (b) fifth-grade girls will be more altruistic than
fifth-grade boys.

Table 2 portrays means and standard deviations for gender
and self-esteem in relation to altruism scores. Examination of this

table reveals a great deal of similarity among all four groups.

TABLE 2.--Altruism, Sex and Self-Esteem

 

Altruism Score

 

Self-Esteem Group Sex Mean Standard Deviation
High Male 10.2 8.77
Female 14.5 6.32
Low Male 11.2 11.9
Female 13.5 7.34

 

20

21

TABLE 3.--Analysis of Variance: Altruism, Sex, and Self-Esteem Score

 

 

Score SS DF MS F
Sex 42.25 1 42.25 .56
Self-Esteem O 1 0 0
Gender X 4.00 l 4.00 .053
Error 911.50 12 75.90 ---
Total 957.75

 

With altruism scores as the dependent variable, a 2 X 2 analysis
of variance (Table 3) showed that neither gender nor self-esteem had
any significant effect on altruism. Thus neither hypothesis was

supported.

DISCUSSION

This study did not confirm the hypothesis that low self-esteem
is associated to low altruism and high self-esteem to high altruism,
nor did it find that females scored higher than males in altruism.
These negative findings warrant attention to the concept of altruism
and its measurement in this study, where altruism was operationally
defined as sharing behavior. The concept itself does not entail one
single type of behavior but covers a diversity of responses such as
helping, defending, rescuing, sympathizing, sharing, and more (Yarrow
Scott, and Waxler, 1973). Researchers in the area have been persistent
in doing empirical studies where much concern is given to the
elicitation of altruistic behavior rather than in examining how these
behaviors are learned (Midlarsky, 1968). Although the motivational
components involved in the understanding and assessing of altruistic
behavior have been somewhat vague, investigators have used a behavioral
approach to altruism because of the problems associated with determining
thoughts and feelings related to the motivational components of a1-
truism. The motivational definition of altruism is as a helping act
which is motivated primarily by the benefactor's anticipation of per-
sonal gain from the recipient. 0n the other hand, a behavioral view
of altruism is an any conduct that helps another regardless of the

helper's motives. The attention is placed on the actual behavior rather

22

23

than the motives involved. There are some problems with the behavioral
definition, but it is commonly used in the literature for assessing
altruistic behavior. Another major problem mentioned in the litera-
ture regarding the concept is the difficulty of defining altruistic
acts (Krebs, 1970).

In the present research altruism was defined as sharing
behavior; the amount of money given to a fictitious "needy child" was
it's measure. The technique itself elicits altruistic behavior, and
researchers tend to agree that it is a good tool for measuring altruism,
however, this tool also has shortcomings. One basic concern in this
study, as in other research on the subject, is that it has been largely
experimental, where emphasis is placed on modifying sharing or helping
behavior (Yarrow, Scott, and Waxler, 1973). In these experimental
situations other problems are generated, for situations are typically
created where the child has to share something earned in a game with
an abstract person or group. This sharing, though interpreted as
altruistic behavior, may not validly measure altruism. All instances
of sharing is not altruistic. That is to say, the elicitation of
sharing behavior does not suggest the child is altruistic.

Still another problem exists where the experimenter may have
unintentionally influenced the child's responses to these abstract
others. When the child is asked, "would you like to share some of
your earning with a needy child?" the investigator has to make his
story as convincing as possible. Such verbal expressions may promote
impersonal acts of altruism, and they usually momentarily govern the

child's altruistic behavior. But, stronger signs of altruism might

24

have been observed, if the recipient was actually present in these
situations, so that the needy child was face-to-face with the potential
benefactor. Strong incidence of altruism was found in situations where
there were some direct contacts between recipient and benefactor
(Aronfreed and Paskal, 1966; Midlarsky & Bryan, 1967; and Yarrow,
Scott, and Waxler, 1973).

As mentioned earlier, most empirical studies on the subject
have been devoted toward the elicitation of altruistic behavior rather
than the learning processes involved for understanding the origins
and development of the phenomenon. Future research should examine
some of the early developments of altruistic behavior and how such
behaviors are enchanced. Until these areas are investigated the

incidence of altruism will remain unclear.

SUMMARY

This study was an attempt to examine the relationship between
self-esteem and gender on altruism, i.e., subjects scoring low on self-
esteem inventory would expected to obtain significantly lower altruism
scores than those subjects with high self-esteem scores and boys lower
scores than girls. The testing instrument for measuring self-esteem
was the Coopersmith Self—Esteem Inventory. A behavioral measure for
altruism was developed by the author.

The self-esteem inventory was administered to pupils in two
fifth grade classes in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Those subjects scoring
in the upper 15 percentile were considered high in self-esteem (4 males
and 4 females), whereas those scoring in the lower 15 percentile were
considered low in self-esteem (4 males and 4 females).

These high and low self-esteem subjects were also tested for
altruism by awarding them 23 cents for doing a small task and asking
them to donate some of the earnings to a "needy child."

It was hypothesized that: (a) Subjects scoring low in self-
esteem on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory would score low on the
behavioral measure for altruism. (b) Females would be more altruistic
than males in both high and low self-esteem groups. Results did not

provide support for either of the hypotheses.

25

REFERENCES

26

REFERENCES

Aronfreed, J. Conduct and consciences: The Socialization of Interna-
lized Control over Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

 

Aronfreed, J. and V. Paskal. Altruism, Empathy and the Conditioning
of Positive Affect. Unpublished Manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania, 1965.

 

Bandura, A. "Vicarious Processes: A Case of no-trial learning."
In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press,*l965.

 

 

Berger, S. M. Conditioning through Vicarious Instigation.
Psychological Review. Vol. 69. 1962.

 

Berkowitz, L., and L. Daniels. Responsibility and Dependency.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 6. 1963.

 

Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco:
Freeman, 1969.

 

Darlington, R. B. & Macker, C. E. "Displacement of Guilt-Produced
Altruistic Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social
P§ychology, IV, 1966.

 

 

Erikson, E. H. "Growth and Crises of the Health Personality,"
In Identity and the Life Cycle (Psycholoical Issues, #1),
1959.

 

Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York:
Norton, 1945.

Fischer, W. F. Sharing in Preschool Children as a function of
Amount and Type of Reinforcement. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 68, 1963.

 

Freud, A. The Ego and the Merchanisms of Defense. London:
Hogarth, 1937.

 

Gewitz, J. L. Succorance in Young Children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State of University of Iowa, 1948.

 

Z7

28

Glover, E. Notes on Oral Character Formation. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 6, 1925.

 

 

Gordon, C. "Self-Conceptions Methodologies." Journal of Nervous and

 

Mental Disease, 148, #1, 1969.

 

Gouldner, A. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 1960.

 

Grusec, J. E. & S. L. Skubiski. Model Nurturance, Demand Character-
istics of the Modeling Experiment, and Altruism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970.

 

Handlon, B. J. & P. Gross. The Development of Sharing Behavior.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 9, 1959.

 

Harris, M. Some Determinants of Sharing in Children. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, 1968.

 

Hartup, W. W. and E. 0. Keller. Nurturance in preschool children and
it's relation to dependency. Child Develgpment, 1963, 31.

 

James, W. Psychology: The Briefer Course. Holt: New York, 1892.

 

Kohlberg, L. The Development of Children's Orientations toward a
Moral Order. I. Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought.
Viata Humana, 6, 1963.

 

Krebs, Dennis L. Altruism--An examination of the concept and a
review of the literature. ngchological Bulletin, 73, 1970.

 

Midlarsky, E. and J. H. Bryan. "Training Charity in Children.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1967.

 

Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1932.

 

Rogers, C. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961.

 

Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Rosenhan, D. "Some Origins of Concern for Others,“ in P.H. Mussen,
J. Langor and M. Corrington (eds.), Trends and Issues in
Develgpmental Psychology (New York, 1953).

 

 

Rosenhan, D. and White, G.M. ”Observation and Rehearsal as
Determinants of prosocial Behavior," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5, 1967.

 

 

Schopler, J. and N. Bateson. "The Power of Dependence,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 1965.

 

 

29

Staub, E. The effects of success and failure on children's sharing
behavior. Paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of the
Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, Penn., April,
1969.

Sullivan, H. S. "The Beginning of the Self-System," In Sullivan's
The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. Norton, New York,
1953.

Ugurel-Semin, R. "Moral Behavior and Moral Judgment in Children,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 1952.

Wilke, J. and J. T. Lanzetta. "The Obligation to Help: The effects
of prior help on subsequent helping behavior," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1970.

 

White, G. M., and D. L. Rosenhan. "Elicitation of Charitable Behavior
in Children," American Psychologist, 21, 1966.

Wright, 8. "Altruism in children and the Perceived Conduct of Others,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 37, 1942.

Wylie, R. The Self-Concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1961.

 

Yarrow, M. R., P. M. Scott and C. F. Waxler. "Learning Concern for
Others,” Developmental Psychology, 8, 1973.

APPENDICES

3O

APPENDIX A

SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY

Please mark each statement in the following way:

If the statement describes how you usually feel, put a check ( ) in
the column "Like Me."

If the statement does not describe how you usually feel, put a check
( ) in the column "Unlike Me."

There are no right or wrong answers.

«000

N03 01%de

Like Me Unlike Me

I spend a lot of time daydreaming.

 

I'm pretty sure of myself.

 

I often wish I were someone else.

 

I'm easy to like.

 

My parents and I have a lot of fun
together.

 

I never worry about anything.

 

I find it very hard to talk in front
of the class.

 

I wish I were younger.

 

There are lots of things about myself
I'd change if I could.

 

I can make up my mind without too much
trouble.

 

I'm a lot of fun to be with.

 

I get upset easily at home.

 

I always do the right thing.

 

I'm proud of my school work.

 

Someone always has to tell me what to do.
It takes me a long time to get used to
anything new.

 

 

I'm often sorry for the things I do.

 

I'm popular with kids my own age.

 

My parents usually consider my feelings.

 

I'm never unhappy.

 

31

32

I'm doing the best work that I can.
I give in very easily.

I can usually take care of myself.
I'm pretty happy.

I would rather play with children
younger than me.

My parents expect too much of me.

I like everyone I know.

I like to be called on in class.

I understand myself.

It's pretty tough to be me.

Things are all mixed up in my life.
Kids usually follow my ideas.

No one pays much attention to me at
home.

I never get scolded.

I'm not doing as well in school as
I'd like to.

I can make up my mind and stick to it.

I really don't like being a boy (girl).

I have a low opinion of myself.

I don't like to be with other people.
There are many times when I'd like to
leave home.

I'm never shy.

I often feel upset in school.

I often feel ashamed of myself.

I'm not as nice looking as most people.

If I have something to say, I usually
say it.

Kids pick on me very often.

My parents understand me.

I always tell the truth.

My teacher makes me feel I'm not

good enough.

I don't care what happens to me.

I'm a failure.

I get upset easily when I'm scolded.

Most people are better liked than I am.

I usually feel as if my parents are
pushing me.

I always know what to say to people.
I often get discouraged in school.
Things usually don't bother me.

I can't be depended on.

Like Me Unlike Me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

SELF-ESTEEM AND ALTRUISM RAW SCORES

Self-Esteem Altruism Sex

 

88 15 F
82 23 F
82 12 F
70 8 F
80 3 M
86 8 M
78 23 M
92 7 M
32 8 F
34 23 F
40 13 F
34 10 F
34 23 M
26 2 M
32 0 M
36 20 M

33

"11111111 11111117111 11111 T