Thursday, March 16, 2017

EFFECT OF GENDER AND LOCALITY ON ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR



TITLE PAGE


EFFECT OF GENDER AND LOCALITY ON ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR AMONG ADULTS.

 

BY



ACHUKWU CHISOM OGOCHUKWU

PSY/2006/016


A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
CARITAS UNIVERSITY, AMORJI, NIKE ENUGU


IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY


JULY, 2010

 

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this work was carried out by Achukwu Chisom Ogochukwu of the department of psychology, faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Caritas University, Amorji Nike Enugu.

 

______________________                           ____________________

Prof. Eya R.N.                                                  Date

Supervisor

 

 

______________________                           ____________________

Nwankwo B.E.                                                   Date

Head of Department

 

 

 

______________________                           ____________________

External Examiner                                                   Date

 


DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God almighty who in his infinite mercy gave me the wisdom, knowledge and understanding of making this work a success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of the work would not have been possible without the co-operation and assistance of many people. For this reason. I remain particularly grateful to God Almighty for granting me his grace and protection throughout my stay in the University.
        I express my profound gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Eya Regina for her motherly advice and patience in going through this work chapter by chapter.
        I and indeed grateful to my HOD (Head of Department), Mr. Barnabas Nwankwo for his dedication in handling and piloting the affairs of the department. My gratitude also goes to other lecturers in the department for their enthusiasm and eagerness towards making our academic pursuit a success; Associate Prof. O. Omeje, Mr. J.U. Aboh, Mr. Ejike Okonkwo, Mr. T.C. Obi.
        I am equally grateful to my parents Mr and Mrs Uzodinma Benjamin Achukwu for their financial support and encouragement. I thank my siblings for their support too; Uzoamaka Emmanuel, Nkem, Oluchi, Chijindu, Chioma and Patrick. I will not fail to acknowledge one and only beloved Aneke Chidiebere Solution who also gave his financial support, his love, caring and understanding to see that I did not lack during this work.
        I acknowledge the contributions and support of my friends towards this work; Udezue Oby, Odiamma Chinwelfenu, Akamobi Adaobi, Ujo Chindinma, Akpotive Rachael, Modebe Eziamaka, Oyedum Ifeoma, Madubuko Onyinye, Udugwu Queeneth, Emeghe
 Olugu, Omniyi Loveth and Ofoegbu Onyinye. Also my course mates; Modebe Eziamaka, Otiono Vivian, Njoku Nnenna, Ibeme Nancy, Ike Chukwuebuka, Ohiri Uchenna, Lawrence and Rev. Sis. Harietta Okonkwo.
        I cannot remember all names, but I pray that almighty God in his infinte goodness will bless those that their names did not appear above. May God Almighty bless you all Amen.

Achukwu Chisom .O.   

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       i
Certification     -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       ii
Dedication       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       iii
Acknowledgment     -       -       -       -       -       -       -       iv
Table of Contents     -       -       -       -       -       -       -       v
List of Tables   -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       vi
Abstract   -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       vii

CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study -       -       -       -       -       -       1
Purpose of the Study       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       5
Statement of the Problem -       -       -       -       -       -       6
Operational Definition of Terms       -       -       -       -       -       7

CHAPTER TWO:  LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Review   -       -       -       -       -       -       -       8
Empirical Review     -       -       -       -       -       -       -       14
Summary of the Review   -       -       -       -       -       -       26
Hypotheses      -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       27
CHAPTER THREE:   METHODOLOGY
Participants     -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       28
Instrument       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       29
Procedure -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       31
Design and Statistics       -       -       -       -       -       -       31

CHAPTER FOUR
Results    -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       32

CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       35
Implications of the Findings        -       -       -       -       40
Limitations of the Study- -       -       -       -       -       -       41
Suggestions of Further Research     -       -       -       -       42
Summary and Conclusion           -           -           -           -           --          -           42       
Recommendations   -       -       -       -       -       -       -       43
References       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       44
Appendix I
Questionnaire on Altruistic Behavior   -       --      -

Appendix II
Calculation of spilt Half Reliability Coefficient
using pearson product moment correlation
coefficient based on data obtained from pilot study -

Appendix III
 Raw scores and squared scores of gender and
locality on Altruistic behavior among Adults   -       -

Appendix IV
Calculation on Two-Way ANOVA    -       -       -       -
LIST OF TABLES
Table I:    Summary table of mean on the effect of
gender and locality on altruistic behavior
among adults. 

Table II:   Summary table of two way-ANOVA on the
effect of gender and locality on altruistic
behavior among adults.  

ABSTRACT
This study investigated gender and locality on altruistic behavior among adults. A total of 100 participants comprising 50 males (25 rural and 25 urban), 50 females (25 rural and 25 urban) were used. The  participants who were within the age range of 25-55 years has a mean age of 41 years. A 15 tem questionnaire designed to measure-altruistic behavior was used. A 2 x 2 factorial design was adopted based on 2 levels of gender as factor; male/female, and 2 level of locality as a factor; Rural/Urban areas. Hence two-way ANOVA – F Test was applied as a statistical test to analyze the data. However, the findings showed no significant effect of gender on altruistic behavior [F (1,96) = 1.13, P>.05]. There was a significant effect of locality [F (1,96) = 67.95 <.01]. Those in the rural area were found to have higher level of altruism than those in the Urban areas. There was no interaction effect of gender and locality on altruistic behavior [F (1,96) = 34.92 >.05]. The findings were discussed in relation to the literature reviewed and recommendations were also made.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

We have considered whether helping could be a genetically transmitted product of evolution. But perhaps helping ruin in families rather than through the whole human race.    Some individuals have a stronger genetically based prosperity to keep than do others. One of the classic puzzle about social behavior is why human perform action that keep society.
        In 1944, a young Swedish diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg was sent into Baudapest, Hungary, with instructions from the Nazis. Wallenberg was an imaginative young man whose heroes were Charlie Chaplin and Mark brothers. Wellenberg decided to collect assortment of official-cooking Hungarcain documents, such as driver’s license and tax receipts, and try to pass them off to the German as “Swedish” protective “passports”. In a typical act of creative heroism, he dimmed? On top of a moving train carrying hundreds of Jews to the death camps. He then ran along the roof, dropping the passport through the air vent.
        Finally, he ordered the train to stop and release all the “Swedish citizens”. Raoul eventually saved more than 100,000 women, men and children through creative but exceptionally risked actions as (Folge man 1944 Wellenberg, 1990). Another example of altruism is that of Suzu Valadez, the woman who bring food and supplies to people living near the mellican garbage dump.        Altruism is a voluntary help fullness that is motivated by concern about the responsibility of personal reward (Midlarsky Kahana 1944).
        Altruism as a prosocial behavior is voluntary action that benefits another person. Prosocial behavior can include; comforting, helping, rescuing sharing, and co-operating, (Elsenberg 1992). In general, prosocial children have parents who are nuturant and supportive, often providing a model of prosocial behavior Zahn and Smith (1992). For instance individual who were active in the civil right movement during the 1950’s and 1960’s were likely to have parents who had vigorously worked for social cases in previous decades (Elsenberg 1992). Batson (1995) aggress that altruism is often selfishly motivated. However, people are sometimes purely altruistic and not the least but selfish. Batson (1995) proposes that we often help other people because we experience empathy, which means that we feel the same pain, suffering, or other emotion that someone else feels for example, you may feel empathy for a friend who did not get the job he hoped for.
        We mentioned that altruism is often selfish motivated, specifically, we may help other people for two major selfish reasons:
1.          We want to avoid the personal pain of seeing someone suffer or else the guilt of not helping someone in distress.
2.          We want to share vicariously the joy that someone feels when his or her life improves.
Notice, then that these reasons represent two different kinds selfishness, the first avoids personal pain and the second seeks out personal pleasure. Batson primary contribution is the research in altruism is that he has demonstrated how people can be altruistic when their empathy is roused, even when neither the “avoiding personal pain” nor the “seeking vicarious joy hypothesis can operate.”
Altruistic people were likely to come from families who encourage their children to think how their own action would have consequences for other people. This focus seems likely to encourage compassion. The parents themselves also served as model of altruistic behaviors. They encourage their children to ignore social class, race, and religion in choosing their friends. As a result, these same children grew into adult who could appreciate the similarities that bind all humans to one another. They are less likely to emphasize the kind of boundaries that separate “as” from “them”
Finally, it is obvious that we can be altruistic for a variety of reasons, we can be altruistic because we want to avoid personal pain and guilty, we are sometimes be altruistic because we want to experience vicarious joy. However, we can also be altruistic when neither of these more selfish rationales is relevant. Instead we help other people because we feel a bond with them. Our empathy is aroused, we want to reduce their distress and improve their lives.
In view of the above, the researcher want to investigate whether such factors like gender and locality will affect altruistic behavior among adults.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The aims of this study are as follows!
To determine whether gender will significantly influence altruistic behavior among Adults.
        To determine whether locality will significantly influence altruistic behavior among Adults.       
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Often times, it perturbs me why we should not be our brothers keeper. However, I noticed that some individuals find it difficult to render help to others while very few see it as a way of life. Whenever I travel to the village, I noticed high degree of love from rural dwellers which I find difficult to see in the Urban areas. This gives me worry in addition to this, there is always an argument that males renders  prosocial help more than female. In other to give answers to this opinion and also to know how much we help ourselves, the present study was born. It came to the pick when I asked why people find it difficult to help strangers, accident victims etc.
        Therefore, the following problems would be addressed in this study.    
 Will gender significantly influence altruistic behavior among Adults?
        Will locality significantly influence altruistic behavior among Adults.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS
Altruistic behavior – An act of help in which the person doesn’t look for reward or the  consequence. In this study participants who scores above 30 on altruistic behavior scale exhibits high altruistic behavior while score below 30 is a low altruistic behavior.
Gender: Being male or female.
Locality: Rural and Urban Areas.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
        For the theoretical background of this study, the development of Moral judgment Theory as postulated by Lawrence Kohlberg  will  be reviewed.
        Kohlbergs theory concerns the understanding of how Moral judgments are made. The theory believes that the evolution of Moral reasoning is a process that coincides with the maturation of intellectual abilities. Piaget (1948) argued that child’s ability to evaluate a Moral act was closely related to the child’s relationship to adult authorities. In early childhood, from about four to eight, children are subject to the laws of adults. When children of this age group are asked about right and wrong conduct, they evaluate the situation in terms of the adult’s sanctions. If an adult would punish such an act, it must be wrong. If an adult would approve the act, it must be right. After age eight, coinciding with the acquisition of concrete operational skills, children who participate with peers in active play discover that each peer brings his or her own experience, his or her own perspective, to play peer interactions are the primary mechanisms that free a child’s thinking from domination by adult sanctions and lead the way to an independent evaluation of right and wrong.
        Kohlberg  (1964) has expanded this cognitive orientation to moral judgment. He poses very complex stories to children and asks them to judge the rightness or generally a conflict between personal interest and the lager good. Children have the opportunity to see ways in which a person might break a specific law in order to preserve a basic moral principle. These stories generate responses that Kohlberg categories in three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional and post conventional morality. At the preconventional stage, from ages four to ten, Kohlberg  finds that the child decides about right and wrong on the basis of whether an act is punished or rewarded. Acts that have good consequences are right. Act that have bad consequence are wrong. During the conventional stage, which corresponds to adolescence, Kohl berg finds that young people express a concern with maintaining the social system. The influence of adult authorities continues to be felt quite strongly at this stage, as adolescents argue for the legitimate role of authorities in creating and upholding rules. In the postconventional stage, which begins to emerge during adulthood, Kohlberg finds that young adults begin to appreciate the relativity of their own cultural moral system. Morality is understood as a social agreement that requires mutual trust and reciprocity. During this final stage, individuals may formulate a personal moral code, which takes priority over conventional principles under certain circumstances.
        Kohlberg view adolescence as vitality important period in the emergence of a personal morality. During this time of life, the awareness of one’s subjective perspective of life events permits an appreciation of the relativistic nature of all moral principles. These relativistic thinking calls into question the adequacy or even the social group. During adolescence, people first begin to evaluate the legitimacy of their society’s morality. Once the prevailing code has been questioned, of course, there is always the possibility that a new moral compassionate, or more just ethic will emerge.
        Thus adolescence becomes the period of life in which individuals can begin to contribute to the evolution of moral thought (Kohlberg and Gilligan, 1972).

THE CONCEPT OF ALTRUISM
        Having known all these about altruism, let us look at some factors that more important when we consider altruism such as;
        People are more likely to be altruistic when they have such another person. Serving as a model for altruistic behavior Schroeder (1995).
        Researches showed that people are more altruistic when a nearby person remarks that someone really needs help. Incidentally, Ervin personal decision to study altruism was probably influenced by observing another individual’s altruism. As a 6-year old child living in Hungary, Ervin was one of the many people rescued from the Nazis by Rauol, Fog leman (1994).
        Furthermore, Altruism more likely when people are not in a rush, hurrying off to other pressing duties Schroeder (1995).

Two path way’s for Altruism
 















Source! Based on Batson 1971, 1995

EMPIRICAL REVIEW ON ALTRUISM
        Studies have been carried out in the area of altruism and altruistic behavior, some of these studies will be discussed below: -
Rosenhan (1996) observed that Altruistic behavior are very pervasive since they satisfy a wide array of egotistic motivations in addition to having autonomy of their own.   
Rosenhan (1999) carried a research to investigate the effect of modeling on altruism. In his research, 156 third and   fifth grade children were exposed to a model that shared with them, gave to a charity, or refuse to share. He left apparatus, identified as a game consisted of a box with original lights and a chute through which marbles were dispensed. Subjects and the model played the game twice. The first time the model won and disposed of prize marble in one of three ways. The second time the subject won and was free to dispose of or save   prize marbles.
        Finally, both specific and general imitations of altruism were found and sahence of sharing appeared to be strong related to actual sharing and weakly related to experimental conditions.         
        Persons with high self-esteem reciprocate less than those with lower self-esteem. Gregor and Conne, (2001). They also observed that people reciprocate more when confronted face to face.
        Lickona (2004) on his study titled “Developmental approach to Altruism” observed that altruism which serves as the interest of others at the expense of the self goes beyond the requirement of morality into the realm of love.
        Chandler (2004) in his work “knowing the sort of help that is really needed. Suggests that any dull inquiry into the developmental course of altruistic behavior must include attention to the processes by which children come to recognize and identify other people’s needs, and frame responses which repeat this understanding. He further argues that altruism cannot be defined in exclusively behavioral terms, but must consider the intentions which underlie, as well as the  consequences  which follow upon, responses to the distress of others. Research showed, that people are more altruistic when a nearby person remarks that someone really needs help.
        However, Wentink (2005) examined the influence of a role taking, altruism and competition in children. During a 12 week period (30 minutes a day, four days a week) 963 to 9 year old. Children were enrolled in a social perspective-taking training program at school. A control group of 96 subjects attended a regular school program. The training consisted of the following aspects;
1.          Helping children learn, recognize various feeling in themselves and other and to understand and predict what emotions might result from specific classroom events.
2.          In role-playing
3.          Practice in concepts of perspective
4.          Practice in play strategy. Before and after the training the subject were tested individually on nine role-taking last. The 4 to 9 year old children were also tested.
In controlled situations on altruism and competition,Analysis of covariance with mental age and the pretest role-taking score as comparables revealed that, in companies with the control group. The 6 and 7 year old children in the experimental group increased their total role-taking ability significantly. For the 3-4-5 and 8 year olds, there was significant difference only. On some role-taking subjects. Chi-square tests on the posttests scores for altruism and competition did not reveal any main or interact effect on both variables. However, there was a trend on the post-test for children on the experimental group to help more than children in the control group.
Iannotti (2005) in the study of empathy in 6 to 9 year old boys observed age differences only for role taking empathy which contrary to predictions decreased with age egocentric forms of empathy were positively correlated with each other and negatively correlated with role-taking empathy. There were not significantly correlated with age, role-taking, altruism, or aggression. Role-taking empathy was negatively correlated with age, role-taking, and altruism and unrelated to aggression.
Dowdle and Baker (1995) in their study titled “Effects of the behavior of others on Attribution of Altruism” revealed that subjects judgment were a function of the social desirability of the observed behavior when the target person had participated in the altruism situation alone. They also observed that the target person had participated with confederates present, subjects judgment were a function of the similarity or  dissimilarly between the target person’s behavior and the confederates behavior rather than the social desirability of the behavior person.
Skarin (2005) examine the effect of age and sex on the degree to which altruistic behavior could be manipulated in a laboratory setting. 192 children were used and were group into equally by sex into three age groups 5-6 years, 7-9 years and 10-12 years. From his findings, females were generally more altruistic than males, he also observed that altruism was found to increase markedly for both males than females in the oldest age group.
Leonard (1999) in his study to investigate the relationship between altruism and blood donating behavior among members of large Midwestern college. Community observed that altruistic behavior is interpreted as combining three motivations;
1.          reward cost
2.          social responsibility and reciprocity and
3.          good mood and feeling
furthermore, Murray and Ahammer (1997) in their study on the effectiveness of four experimental training program designed to faster altruism in kindergarten child observed that the most effective training programs were those in which the child received training in various cognitive and social aspect of the role taking.
An individual will engage in more food altruism with a close relation than with a distant one, given two person with equal relationship with the altruist he will share food with the one who has a higher probability of producing offspring, food will be shared with a group member rather, than with a group out call finally if food is stored there will be less food altruism than if it is not stored (Beinman, 1999).
Miiler (1997) observed in examining the relationship between dependency, empathy and altruism that sharing behavior exist among thirty-six forth grade students who were measured on three measures of dependency and one measure of empathy.
In a one-year longitudinal follow up study of the long term effect of the role-taking training procedures (in which children assumed a member of perspectives) on children’s social and cognitive behavior Lannetti (1997) suggests that the original training promoted a change in performance rather than a structural change.
Atkin and Greenberg (2007) in their research on parental mediation of children’s social behavior learning from Television using 293 mothers who participated in the study by viewing the television with their children observed that parental comments in parents – child co-viewing of television, can shape the child’s response to television message by reducing the negative affect of physical and verbal aggression and increasing  the effects of altruism and affection.
When assessing the influence of empathy on prosocial motivation, analyzing empathy alone, would lead to a misunderstanding. We must also asses other elements of the situations, such as the altruistic’s coping skills and situational constraints (Lannotti, 1999).
Shaffer and Grazino (2001) while examining the effect of positive and negative mood of helping pleasant or unpleasant consequence observed that person experiencing either positive or negative moods are often. More altruistically incurred than their counterparts experiencing neutral effective states.
In a meta-analysis, Eagly (1996) reported that men were more helpful when a audience was present but gender similarities were found when no one else was present.
The internal principle model suggests that for optimal predictability the salience as well as the level of each determinant of altruism should be considered in helping opportunity (Peterson and Andrew, 2002). In addition, Peterson and Reaven (2004) observed that parental limitations on children’s altruism are based on cogent rationales and are a direct function of the situational cost involved and the age and familiarity of the recipient.
Clary and Miller (2006) reported that the rate of sustained altruism of normative volunteers is highly cohesive training was increased to a level comparable to that of autonomous volunteers while the altruism of autonomous volunteers was not affected by the training group experience.
Quigley (1999) in investigating three variables related to attributed altruism determines that any evidence of selfish motivation detract from perceived altruism, and that no evidence of selfish motivation results in positive attributions.
Clement (2003) argues that through equality, human dignity and altruism, individuals learn to define and transcend themselves in relation to others.
Furthermore, Terenzini (1993) in his examination on the relationship between the college experience and education for citizenship in the united states observed that institutional and environmental differences appear to have little impact on changes in students’ attitude, values, or principled of residence and the type of interaction with faculty and peers that the living situation promotes.
In a similar case, Bosworth (1994) while carrying a research on urban and suburban Teen’s perception of carrying discovered that from the students definition of caring the Notion that altruism and caring are constructs of well-informed adolescent especially in the suburban areas.
Between the ages of 3 and 4, children develop some common mechanisms which affect both future oriented prudence and altruism (Thompson, Barresi and Moore, 2007). 
Batson and Weeks (1996) examined mood change as the dependent variable in their research; participants believed that they were helping another students half of the participants received instruction that encouraged low empathy; the other half received high empathy instruction. When they later learned that their effort had not actually helped the other students, those in the high-empathy condition were much sadder. In short, empathy is a powerful motivating force that encourages our altruism.
Altruism is also more common in rural areas and small towns than it is in large cities (Tec, N, 1995).
The three determinant of altruism depend on the situation and changeable circumstances. However, researcher have also discovered systematic individual differences in altruism that seen to be genetically based, (Schroeder, 1995).
In one of these studies, students read scenarios in which a friend asks for help with a personal problem, the female students reported willingness to help than did the male students (Beleansky and Boggiano, 1994). Numerous studies in a variety of laboratory and real-life setting have confirmed that people are significantly less likely to help when others people are nearby (Batson, 1995). We can therefore add group size to the list of variables that influence altruism. Men are more similar that different when consider overall altruism through gender difference may arise in some situation Eagly (1996) From his research, Kakavo (2008) reported that children believe altruistically almost from birth, with a   great variety of this feelings from 2-4 years, mostly expressed towards loved persons and with no gender difference.
Finally, Boster Fredrick and Kotowski (2007) in the research to discover “the effectiveness of an altruistic appeal in the presences and absence of favours” reported in review of sex differences males were more complaint than female but the difference is not much.
Conclusively, it is obvious that we can be altruistic for a variety of reasons; we can be altruistic because we want to avoid personal pain and guilt we are some times altruistic because we want to experience vicarious joy. However, we can also be altruistic when neither of those more selfish rationales is relevant. Instead, we help other people because we feel a bond with them. Our empathy is aroused, we want to reduce their distress and improve their lives.
Finally, some factors like, Age, Locality Altruistic Message, and education were found as factors in relation to altruistic behavior in the empirical review.

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW
        From the theoretical review, one could see that it takes moral judgment to be altruistic. In other words, most people tend to be altruistic because of the moral conscience. However, the theory faced to recognize the impact of experience, some people become altruistic behavior they received such help when they were in trouble. Something they wouldn’t have done if they did have such experience.
        In addition, Altruism can be learned as well. Above all, most of the empirical review showed that the level of altruism in the society is very low.    

HYPOTHESES
In this study, the following hypothesis was tested.
There would be no significant effect of gender on altruistic behavior among adults.
There would be no significant effect of locality on altruistic behavior among adults.  
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLGY
PARTICIPANTS
                A total of 100 participants comprising 50 urban adults (25 females and 25 males) and 50 rural adults (25 females and 25 males) who volunteered to participate were used as sample for this study. The participants were within the age range of 25-55 years with a mean age of 41years and a standard deviation of 8 years. The urban participants were selected from the inhabitants of Enugu metropolis while the rural participants were selected from Obe in Nkanu West Local Government both in Enugu state. Out of the 50 participants selected from rural area, 10(20%) attended only primary education, 20(40%) attend secondary education only 20(40%) attended higher institution with 13(26%) of obtaining Ordinary National Diploma (OND) 7(14%) Higher National Diploma (HND) while 5(10%) has Bachelor of Science (B.Sc).
        For the urban participants, 10(20%) were senior school certificate holders, 25(50%) have OND while 10(20%) HND. B.Sc 4(8%) while 1(2%) was a holder of master’s degree.

INSTRUMENT
        A 15- item questionnaire with likert-type response format designed to measure altruistic behavior was used. The items of the questionnaire were worded positively with almost always four (4) points, often 3 points, sometimes two (2) points, rarely one (1) point while not at all has 0 point. Thus a least possible score of O and a highest possible score of 60 could be obtained by any given respondent.
        Hence score between 0 – 30 indicate low altruistic behavior 31-60 indicate high level of altruistic behavior.
        However, a preliminary investigation was carried before embarking on the main study. Hence, a total of three judges that served as subject experts selected from academic staff of Department of Psychology caritas University Enugu and Enugu State University of Science and Technology Enugu were administered the 20 formulated items designed to measure altruistic behavior. The judges were required to rate on the surface basis to validate the items towards measuring the construct. “Altruism.”
        Obviously, only 15 items were accepted and 5 rejected based on 2/3 agreement of the ratings of the judges.
        In addition, a pilot study was carried out with 30 participants comprising 15 urban adults, 7 males and 8 females selected from Awka, metropolis Anambra and Ngwo in Udi Local Government Area Enugu State. Data collected yielded a split-half reliability co-efficient of 0.51 and a corrected value of 0.68 using spearman Brown. The above calculated values where compared with r-critical value of 0.46 at P < 01 which indicated the result of the significant.



PROCEDURE
        A total of 120 copies of the questionnaires were randomly distributed within a period of six weeks to select participants for this study. The participants were distributed into four homogenous clusters of male urban participants, female urban participants, male rural participants, female rural participants. Administration of the questionnaire was carried by the researcher. Stratified random sampling technique was used. Urban participant were approached in their offices and homes while the rural participants.
        However, out of the 120 copies that were distributed, only 106 copies were correctly filled and returned. Meanwhile, 100 copies were used with a base line of 25 copies in each strata.

DESIGN/STATISTICS
        Based on two independent variables Gender; Male/Female, locality; urban/rural with two levels each, the appropriate design adopted was 2x2 factorial design while two way ANOVA statistics F-test was used to test the hypothesis.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
TABLE I
Summary table of mean on the effect of gender and locality on altruistic behavior among adults.
LOCALITY
                                Rural               Urban     

          
GENDER
 
           Males
 
X11=  54.6

49.78
 
X12  = 44.96

          Females
 
X21  =  54.56

48.36
 
X22  = 42.16
54.58                               43.56
 
 
Results as shown in table I showed that rural participants obtained the highest mean of 54.58 while urban participants has a mean of 43.56. Also male participants has a higher mean of 49.78 compared to female participants with a mean of 48.36.
TABLE II
Summary table of Two way ANOVA on the effect of Gender and locality on Altruistic behavior among adults.
Sources of variation
Sum of squares
DF
Mean Square
F
P
Row (Gender)
50.41
1
50.41
1.13
>.05
Column (locality)
3036.01
1
3036.01
67.95
<.01
Interaction (Gender & Locality)
-1560.31
1
-1560.31
-34.92
>.05
Within cell
4289.4
96
44.68


Total
5815.51
99




        Results as shown in table II revealed no statistically significant gender difference on altruistic behavior among adults.
F (1,96)  = 1.13, P > .05.   The first hypothesis
Which stated that gender will not significantly effect altruistic behavior among adults was therefore accepted. From the table of means it was found that male and female adults share similar level of altruistic behavior.
        Results also showed a statistically significant difference in altruistic behavior between urban and rural participants F(1,96) = 67.95 < .01). The second hypothesis which stated that locality will not significantly influence altruistic behavior among adults was rejected. It was found that those living in the rural area demonstrated a higher level of altruistic behavior than those living in the urban areas.
        There was no significant interaction effect F(1,96) = 34.92 > .05). Though a significant difference was observed between urban and rural participants on altruistic behavior, no difference was observed between male and female adults on altruistic behavior.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
        The results of this study can be summarized as follows:-
        There was no significant gender difference on altruistic behavior among adults.
Locality yielded a significant effect on altruistic behavior among adults.
        Also no significant interaction effect was observed on gender and locality on altruistic behavior among adults.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
        The outcome of the study indicates that no gender differences were found to affect altruistic behavior, while locality as a factor yielded a significant outcome in relation to altruistic behavior.
        Obviously the first hypothesis tested, stated that “There will be no significant effect of gender on altruistic behavior.” was accepted. This indicates that male and females were found not to differ significantly on altruistic behavior. In essence, male and females regardless of their locality tend to share the same or similar altruistic behavior. In other words, no significant gender differences was found to exist between males and females in relation to such altruistic behaviors, like comforting, helping, rescuring, sharing and co-operating.
        Thus, the outcome of this study in relation to gender as a factor supports the views of earlier investigators like Eagle (1996) who observed that male and female are more similar than different when consider in overall altruism, though gender difference may arise in some situations.
        Eagle (1996) reported that male were slightly mere helpful than female in their interaction with stranger, but the gender differences were inconsistent across studies. In addition, Kakovoulis (1998) reported that Children behave altruistically almost from birth, with a great variety of this feelings from 2-4 years. Mostly expressed towards loved persons and with no gender difference. In the same vein, Boster, Fredrick and Kolowski (2001) reported that altruism message was more effective than a direct request message, and a small sex difference. Skarin (2005) reported that altruism was found to increase markedly for both male and females in the oldest age group.
        Thus, observation reveals that the outcome of this study is also similar to the findings of previous studies in relation to altruistic behavior.
        However, the second hypothesis tested which stated that “There will be no significant effect of locality towards altruistic behavior among adults” was rejected. This means that a significant outcome was observed in relation to locality as a factor towards altruistic behavior among adults. Hence, locality as a factor was to found to affect significantly altruistic behavior, in that a significant difference was also observed between, urban and rural males and females. In other words, locality yielded a significant outcome regardless of gender as a factor. Thus, rural people are more altruistic than urban people. This particular finding is in consonance with findings of old researchers like, Terenzini (1993) reported that institutional and environmental differences appear to have little impact or changes in students’ attitudes, values, or principled of residence and the type of interaction with faulty and peer that the living situation promotes. In a similar case,
Bosworth et al (1994) reported that altruism and caring are construct of well-informed adolescents especially in the suburban areas Lannotti (1997) also pointed situational constraints as a factor to look into when assessing that influence of empathy on prosocial motivation, he further stated that analyzing empathy alone, would lead to a misunderstanding. In addition, Peterson and Reawen (1984) observed that parental limitation on children altruism are based on cogent rationales and are a direct function of the situation cost involved and the age and familiarity of the recipient. According to Schroeder et al, (1995). Altruism is more likely when people are not in rush, hurrying off to other pressing duties, and this is very common in the urban areas than rural areas.    
        Apparently, previous studies indicated numerous factors to be scientifically associated with altruistic behavior but the outcome of hypothesis II indicated significant outcome in relation to locality. Above all, one may observe that the significant outcome based in locality may be due to varying degree of differences between rural and urban attitudes values and beliefs.
        Apart from the significant effect of locality in altruistic behavior, no significant interaction effect or gender and locality was found in relation to altruistic behavior among adults.
        This means that an individual’s gender and likewise whether he/she residences in rural and urban community yield the same or similar degree of influence towards the level of his/her altruistic behavior.
        In summary, the findings of this study indicates that gender as a factor yielded no significant difference but locality was observed to yield a significant outcome in relation, to altruistic behavior among adults.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
        This study could not be better than now. The study showcased the level of altruism in our society.
        This shows that most people in our society especially those living in the urban centers find it difficult to help. Helping behavior is a welcome attitude that brings peace, unity and development in every society with the outcome of this study, stakeholders in the promotion of charity and helping behavior will know their target population as it relates to campaign for helping behavior.
        In addition, the study has added volume to empirical studies on altruistic behavior. Above all, this study will also serve as a wake-up call for all and sundry to embrace altruistic behavior.




LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
        This study has obvious limitations. First and foremost, only one hundred adults were used out of myriads of adults in Enugu.
        In addition to that, attitude of some of the questionnaire especially the rural dwellers at the initial stage was not encouraging. Most were reluctant to responding to the researcher at the initial stage. Though this was overcome through rapport and confidentiality.
        Another major factor that affected this study level of education. Because some of the participants from rural areas were illiterate, the researcher was subjected to translating some words and sentences in the questionnaire to Igbo language.
        Finally, the problem of finance could not allow the researcher to use much rural dwellers. Above all, the time limit for study was very short. The study was carried during examination period. This could not allow the researcher to reach every areas that she ought to.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
        Based on the findings of this study, the researcher hereby encourage future researchers to expand their study to other rural and urban areas with more population to ascertain the external validity of the result.
        In addition, they should on the role of variables such as Socio-Economic status, level of Education, past negative experience in relation to altruistic behavior in exhibiting altruistic behavior. It is also important that future researchers study why people find it difficult to exhibit altruistic behavior.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The findings revealed the following;
1.          Gender did significantly influence altruistic behavior.
2.          Locality significantly influence altruistic behavior
        Based on the findings of this study, the researcher hereby conclude that Gender did not significantly influence altruistic behavior among adult. Locality significantly influence altruistic behavior among adults with those living in the rural area been more altruistic than those living in the urban centers.
        However, no interaction effect of gender and locality was found to exist between gender and locality on altruistic behavior among adults.

RECOMMENDATIONS
        Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are hereby made;
        That future researchers should carry similar study. In other localities to determine the cross-validity of this study.
        Furthermore, religious leaders, and other stakeholder should see helping behavior as a priority and do everything within their range to propagate it. This can be done through seminars, workshops and conferences.
        Above all, there is need to indicate moral education in our schools at all level with the aims of promoting moral and altruistic behavior.
        We should also see ourselves as our brothers keeper. People should learn to help not only their relations but anyone who is in need whom he/she can afford to help.
REFERENCES
Atkin, C and Greenberg, B. (2009). Parental Mediation of Children’s Social Behavior learning from Television. 29p; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism, 60th, Madison, Wisconsin, August.

Batson, C.D., and Week, J.L. (1996). Mood effect of Unsucceful helping; Another test of the empathy –Altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, 148-157.

Batson. C.D. (1995). Prosocial Motivation: Why do we help others; in A. Tesser (Ed), Advanced Social Psychology (PP. 332-381). New York: McGraw – Hill.

Beinman, S. (1999), Food sharing; An Evolutionary perspective. 29P, paper presented at Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Illinios September 5-9.

Belansky, E.S., and Boggiano A.K. (1994). Predicting Helping  Behavior. The Role of Gender and Instrumental/ Expressive Self-schemata. Sex Roles. 30, 647-661.

Boster, F. Fredrick, T and Kotowskm K. (2007). The effectiveness of an Altruistic Appeal in the presence and absence of favours. Communication Monographs; 68 (4), 340-346.

Bosworth, K. (1994). Urban and Suburban Teens’ Perception of Caring 17P; paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational research Association New Orleans, April 4-8.

Chandler, M. (2004) Knowing The Sort of Help that is Really Weeded. A consideration of Developmental Prerequisites to effective Helping Behavior. 11P; Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention. 82nd, New Orleans August.

Clary, E and Miller, J. (1986). Socialization and Situational  Influences on Sustained Altruism. Child Development;  57 (6), 1358-1369.

Clement, L.M. (2003). Equity, Human Dignity, and Altruism; The caring concerns. New Direction for Student Services 61, (25), 25-34 September.

Dowdle, M.D.; and Baker, E (1975). Perceiving the Good Samaritan; Effects of Behavior of others on Attributions of Altruism. 32p; paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, 46th Chicago, Illinois, May 2-4.

Eagly, A.H. (1996) Gender and Altruism, In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, and P.D. Rozce (Eds), Lectures on The Psychology of Women (PP 42-73). New York: McGraw - Hill.

Elsenberg, N. (1992). The Caring Child. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Fogelman, E. (1994). Conscience and Courage; Rescue of Jews During the Holocaust. New York: Anchor.

Gregor, G. land Conner, H. (2001). Reciprocal Altruism; The Effect of Self-esteem and Anticipation of face to face interaction on Reciprocation. 189; Paper presented at Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, California April 21-24.


Lannotti, R.J. (1997). The many faces of Empathy: An Analysis of the Definition and Evaluation of Empathy in Children. 14; paper presented ay the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in children Development, Denver, Colorado, April 10-13.

Kakavoulis, A.K. (2008). Early Childhood Altruism: How parents see Prosocial Behavior in their young children. Early child Development and Care; 140 115-126 Jan.

Kohlberg. L. (1964). Development of Moral Character and moral ideology. In M.L. Hoffman and L.W Hoffmans Eds. Review of children development research. 1 New York. Russell Sage Foundation P.383-431.


Kohlberg, L. and Gilligan. C (1972). The adolescent a Philosopher. The discovery of the Self in a post Conventional world. In J. Kagen and R roles Ed 12-16 Early adolescence New York; Norton P. 144-179.
Leonard, W. M. (1999). Altruistic Behavior Among College Students; An Investigation of the Social and Psychological Characteristics of Blood Donors. 27P; paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association 22nd, Chicago, Illinois, September 5-9.

Lickona, T. (2004). A Cognitive – Developmental Approach to Altruism. 19P; Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association 82nd, New Orleans, Louisiana, August.

Midlarsky, E.A; and Jahana, E. (1994). Altruism in later life. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Miller, S. (1997). Dependency, Empathy and Altruism. 20P; Paper Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in child Development, New Orleans, Lanisiana, March 17-20.
Murray, J.P. and Ahammer, I. (1997). Kindness in the Kindergarten: A multidimensional program for facilitating Altruism. 15P; paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the society for Research in child Development, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 17-20.

Paloutzian, R.F. (1974). Recent Developments in the Psychology of Individuation and Delndividuation: Toward the Integration of Aggression, Altruism, and morally Relevant Behavior. 25P; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association 54th San. Francisco, California, April.

Peterson, L and Andrew, A.L. (2002) Internal Rule of Altruism: The joint influence of Determinant Salience and level. 10P; Paper Presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association 54th, Minneapolis, MN, May 6-8.

Piaget, J. (1948). The moral Judgment of the Child Glencoe, III, Free Press.

Quigley, B. (1999). Does Asking make a Difference? Effect of initiator, possible Gain, and Risk on Attributed Altruism. Journal of Social Psychology,  129 (2) 259-267 April.

Rosenhan, D. (1999). Determinant of Altruism: Observations For Theory of Altruistic Development. 19P; paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington D.C August 31 September, 4.

Schroeder, D.A.; Penner, L.A., (Dovido, J.F., and Pihaven, J.A (1995), The Psychology of helping and Altruism: Problems and Puzzles New York: McGraw – Hill. 

Shaffer, D.R. and Graziano, N.G (2001). The effects of Positive Negative Moods on helping Tasks having pleasant or unpleasant consequences. 15P; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association 27th, Atlanta, GA, March 25-28.

Skarin, K. (2005). Altruism and Rivalry: An Analysis of age and Differences. 15P; Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of Society for Research in Child Development Dewier, Colorado April 10-13.

Tec, N. (1995). Altruism and The Holocaust. Social Education; 59 348-353 October.

Terenzini, P.T (1993). Educating for Citizenship: Freeing the Mind and Elevating the Spirit. 24P; paper presented as the keynote Address at the Annual Meeting of the Association for General Liberal Studies, Memphis, TV, October, 15.
Thompson C; Barresi, J and Moore C. (2007). The Development of Future Oriented Prudence and Altruism in Preschoolers. Cognitive Development; 12 (2) 199-212 April –June.
Wentink, E. (2005). The Effect of Social Perspective – Taking Training on Role-Taking Ability and Social Interaction in Preschool and Elementary School Children. 29P; paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the International society for the study of behavioral Development (Guildford, Great Britain, July 13-17.

Zahn –Waxler, C, and Smith, K.D. (1992). The Development of Prosocial Behavior. In V.B. Van Hasselt and M. Hersen (Eds), Hand book on Social Development: A Lifespan perspective (pp.3-27). New York; Plenum.
   









   

APPENDIX I
QUESTIONNAIRE ON ALTRUSTIC BEHAVIOR
Department of Psychology
Faculty of Management and
Social Sciences,
Caritas University,
Amorji Nike, Emene,
Enugu.
14th May, 2010.
Dear Respondent,

The bearer is a final year student of the above mentioned department. I am carrying out a study on altruistic behavior. Please you are kindly required to respond to the items of the questionnaire as it applied to you. Your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Please tick AA for Almost, Always, O for often, S, for Sometimes, Rarely N for Never.
Age------------------------------------
Sex  Male         Female
Level of Education Primary Education
Secondary Education
Ordinary National Diploma
Higher National Diploma
Bachelors Degree
Master’s Degree
PhD and Above
Marital Status
Married
Single
Divorced
Occupation
S/NO

AA
0
S
R
1
I do give money to stranger even when I don’t have enough for my own problem




2
To me, accommodating a stranger who is stranded at night happens.




3
I do give refuge to a person I don’t know




4
I fight for someone I don’t know




5
I do give food to strangers and neighbours even when I have little




6
I have devoided myself night sleep(s) because of another person(s) problem who is not my relation.




7
I have donated blood to save someone’s life.




8
I do give out my fairly cloths to strangers




9
It bothers me to help accident victims.




10
I do give money to charity




11
I do give witnesses that put me in a problem only to save another person




12
I do help my neighbour and stranger without working for reward




13
I see another person’s problem as my problem.




14
I do volunteer to work for charity




15
I have faught for injustice





APPENDIX II
CALCULATION OF SPLIT HALF RELIABILITY COEFFICIENT USING PERSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEEFICIENT BASED ON DATA OBTAINED) FROM PILOT STUDY

S/NO
X – Odd
Y – even
X2
Y2
Xy
1
24
30
576
900
720
2
30
27
700
729
810
3
40
19
1600
361
760
4
35
22
1225
484
770
5
30
30
900
900
900
6
35
25
1225
625
875
7
33
27
1089
729
891
8
38
20
1444
400
760
9
32
26
1024
676
832
10
36
22
1296
484
792
11
39
20
1521
400
780
12
35
24
1225
576
840
13
24
30
576
900
720
14
37
21
1369
441
777
15
34
23
1156
529
782
16
30
25
900
625
750
17
27
30
729
900
810
18
35
23
1225
529
805
19
33
24
1089
576
792
20
38
20
1444
400
760
21
41
17
1681
289
697
22
36
23
1296
529
828
23
29
29
841
841
841
24
30
27
900
729
810
25
26
24
676
576
624
26
24
29
576
841
696
27
36
22
1296
484
792
28
25
25
625
625
625
29
38
20
1444
400
760
30
34
23
1156
529
782
åx    =      940  åx2   =      33028
åy    =      272  åy2   =      18007
åxy  =      23381
r       =      Nåxy          - å xEy
                [Nåx2   -  (åx)2 Nåy2  - (åy)2
r       =      30  x 23381  - 940  x 727
30    x 33028  - (940)2  x 30  x 18007 – (727)2
r       =      701430   - 683380
                990840  -  883600  x 540210 – 528529
r       =      18050
                1252670440
r       =      18050
                35393.1
r       =      0.51

APPENDIX III

RAW SCORES AND SQUARED SCORES OF PARTICIPANT RURAL MALE

S/NO
X
X2
1
55
3025
2
58
3364
3
60
3600
4
54
2916
5
50
2500
6
57
3249
7
56
3136
8
53
2809
9
45
2025
10
50
2500
11
58
3364
12
59
3481
13
58
3364
14
54
2916
15
53
2809
16
45
2025
17
49
2407
18
60
3600
19
58
3364
20
54
2916
21
57
3249
22
58
3364
23
59
3481
24
54
2916
25
51
2601

1365
74975

RAW SCORES AND SQUARED SCORES OF PARTICIPANT RURAL FEMALE

S/NO
X
X2
1
58
3364
2
60
3600
3
59
3481
4
58
3364
5
50
2500
6
56
3136
7
52
2704
8
53
2809
9
54
2916
10
56
3136
11
58
3364
12
60
3600
13
52
2704
14
51
2601
15
45
2025
16
42
1764
17
51
2601
18
43
1849
19
58
3364
20
59
3481
21
48
2401
22
48
2401
23
58
3364
24
57
3249
25
60
3600

1346
73378

RAW SCORES AND SQUARED SCORES OF PARTICIPANT URBAN FEMALE

S/NO
X
X2
1
29
841
2
31
961
3
33
1089
4
40
1600
5
50
2500
6
29
841
7
40
1600
8
48
2304
9
50
2500
10
51
2601
11
29
841
12
38
1444
13
48
2304
14
45
2025
15
46
2116
16
58
3364
17
48
2304
18
49
2401
19
52
2704
20
53
2809
21
29
841
22
38
1444
23
45
2025
24
40
1600
25
38
1444

1057
46503

RAW SCORES AND SQUARED SCORES OF PARTICIPANT URBAN MALE

S/NO
X
X2
1
50
2500
2
40
1600
3
42
1764
4
38
1444
5
50
2500
6
39
1521
7
35
1225
8
40
1600
9
46
2116
10
45
2025
11
50
2500
12
52
2704
13
58
3364
14
45
2025
15
40
1600
16
52
2704
17
53
2809
18
48
2304
19
50
2500
20
55
3025
21
48
2304
22
45
2025
23
29
841
24
39
1521
25
35
1225

1124
51746
APPENDIX IV

CALCULATION ON TWO-WAY ANOVA

LOCALITY

                                        Rural                       Urban
Male
 
T11 = 1365
n11  = 25
Gender
 
X11  =  54.6
T1  = 2489

X1  = 49.78



T2  =  2418


X2  = 48.36
 
T12  = 1124
n12  = 25
X12  = 44.96
Female
 
T21  =  1364
n21     25
X21     54.56
T22  = 1054
n22   25
X22   = 42.16
T1     =      2729                T2     =      2178                T      =      4907
X1     =      54.58       X2     =      43.56       X      =      49.07
Calculation of quantities for the computation formulae.
i.      1      R
        nc    C
                å      Tr2   =      1      x      24892       +      24182
                 r =1               25x2                          1

=      1      x      619521    +      5846724
       25x2                         1

=      12041845
               50
        =      240836.9

ii.     1      C
      nR      å T.C2      =      1      x      27292   +   21782
                C                   25x2                       1

        7447441   + 4743684      =      12191125
50                                                                         50

        =      243822.5

(iii)   Rcn
        ååå     X2 rci
        r = 1 C = 1     i = 1
        =      74975   +  51746  + 73378  + 46503
                        =      246602

(iv)   1 R   C
        n å   å              Trc2
        r       = 1  C = 1
=      1      x      13652  +  11252  + 13462  + 10572
        25                                    1
=      1863225  + 1265625  +  1811716  + 1117249
                                        25
=      6057815
            25                =      242312.6
(v)    T2     =      49072
        N                100
        =      24078649
                      100            =      240786.49

CALCULATIONS
A.  SUM OF SQUARES (SS)
(i)     ROWS

        1  R          Tr2    -       T2

        n  å                          N    
                r  = 1
                                240836.9  - 240786.49

SSR   =  50.41


(ii)    COLUMNS
        1      C      T.C2‑ - T2
        nR    å                N

                C  = 1

                                =      243822.5  - 240786.49

SSC =      3036.01


(iii)   WITHIN CELLS
        R      C      n                              1      R      C
        å      å      å      X2 rci  -            n      å      å      Trc2
        r = 1   C = 1  i   = 1                                   r =  1  C  = 1
SSW   = 4289.4

(iv)   INTERACTION
        1      R      C              1      R              1      C
        n      å      å   Trc2  -  nc    å  Tr2  -   nR     å  T.C2  + T2
                                                                                        N
r  =  1  C  = 1                    r  = 1                C  = 1
                242312.6  - 240836.9  - 243822.5  + 240786.49
                        SSRC   =  -1560.31
(v)    TOTAL
        R      C      n              X2 rci        =      T2
        å      å      å                                      N
                r = 1    C = 1    i  = 1
        246602  - 240786.49
                        SST  = 5815.51

B. DEGREES OF FREEDOM (DF)
i.      Rows        = dfr = R  - 1  = 2-1   = 1
ii.     Columns  = dfc  =  C – 1  = 2 – 1  = 1
iii.    Interaction = dfrc = (R-1)  (C-1) = (2-1) (2-1)= 1x1   = 1
iv.    Within Cells  = dfw  = Rc (n-1)  = 2x2 (25 –1)=4 x 24  = 96
v.     Total  = df  = RCn  - 1  = 2x2x25  -  1 = 100 -1 =  99 

C.     MEAN SQUARE OR VARIANCE ESTIMATE

i.      Rows
                Sr2  =  SSR       =      50.41
                          Dfr                    1   =  50.41
ii.     Columns
        SC2  = SSC       =  3036.01
                   Dfc                1             =  3036.01
iii.    Interaction
        SrC2  = SSRC   =  -1560.31
                   dfrc                  1           =      1560.31
iv.    Within Cells
        SW2  =  SSW     = 4289.4
                   DFW            96              =      44.68

D.     F – RATIO
        i.      Rows
                Fr  = Sr2   =  50.41
                        SW2      44.68           =  1.13
        ii.     Columns
                FC  = SC2   =  3036.01
                        SW2        44.68         = 67.95
iii.        Interaction

Frc   = Src2  =  - 1560.31
           SW2            44.63     =  -34.92

E.     F – CRITICAL

        For df1  = 1 and df2   =  96

F – critical value =  3.94 at P<.05 and 6.90 at P<.01 level of significance.



F.     SUMMARY TABLE

        Summary table of two-way ANOVA on gender and locality as factor on altruistic behavior.

Source of variation
Sum of squared
DF
Mean squared
F
P
Rows (Gender)
50.41
1
50.41
1.13
>.05
Column (Locality)
3036.01
1
3036.01
67.95
<.01
Interaction (Gender vs Locality)
-1560.31
1
-1560.31
-34.92
>.05
Within Cells
4289.4
96
44.68


Total
5815.51
96





       

EFFECT OF GENDER AND LOCALITY ON ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR AMONG ADULTS.

 

 


BY



ACHUKWU CHISOM OGOCHUKWU

PSY/2006/016



A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
CARITAS UNIVERSITY, AMORJI, NIKE ENUGU




IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY

 


JULY, 2010

 

 

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)