Altruism

1. Altruism Kayleigh Darling Richard Heinrich Britney Reed Laura Vazquez

2. Altruism • Defined as: • "Helpful behavior that an individual exhibits toward another individual in the absence of an external or internal reward." • It is difficult to define altruism. This definition is a blend of the definition found in the dictionary and the ideas of different philosophers.

3. Convergent Validity • Defined as: data indicating that a test measures the same construct as other tests purporting to measure the same construct • The following are from the Self-Report Altruism Scale • 21. I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers • 22. I have given directions to a stranger. • 23. I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (at a Xerox machine, in the supermarket). • 24. I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger. • 25. I have offer my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.

4. Descriptive Statistics • In total, there were176 (N=176) participants ranging in age from 18 to 70. • The questions used a 5 point Likert scale • Most questions had a low variance, however some such as question 19 and 25 had σ²>1. • In addition, there were 62 (35.0%) males and 104 (58.8%) females • Twenty seven (15.3%) participants identified themselves as African American, 13 (7.3%) as Asian, 109 (61.6%) as Caucasian, 10 (5.6%) as Hispanic and 7 (4.0%) as Other. • Eighteen (10.2%) participants identified themselves as psychology majors, while 148 (93.8%) did not. • Seventy-five (42.4%) identified themselves as college students while the remaining 91 (51.4%) did not.

5. Reliability Item Analysis • The initial measure of reliability was approximately α=.382 • This was computed from 168 participants (9 were excluded by SPSS probably due to missing data). • Problem items were then identified and deleted, increasing the reliability to α=.660. • Deleted items included questions such as “If I do not know someone I will not help them” and “If I help someone and do not get recognized for it, I am disappointed” • These items had good face validity, however when the statistics were analyzed, these items proved to be unreliable. • A one-way ANOVA was also performed for Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and College Grad status but no significant result was found in either categories.

6. Reliability Item Analysis • The variance was quite large before the item elimination, and the questions that were eliminated seemed to account for a large part of the variance. • σ²(before): 76.235 vs. σ²(after): .032 • The reduction in variance seemed to increase the reliability of the overall measure, as variance is used in the computation of Cronbach’s alpha as evidenced from the formula

7. Scale Modification • The reliability of 20 items was measured by Cronbach’s alpha which was initially found to be 0.382, which shows a low degree of internal consistency. • In the table below it was shown that separate factors existed, since some items had a Cronbach’s alpha of greater than 0.382. • Items 5, 11, 12, and 16 were eliminated in an attempt to increase the reliability. After the problem items were eliminated, the Cronbach’s alpha increased to 0.660.

8. The Questionnaire • Self-report measure • Consisted of 25 questions • First 20 questions developed by the authors • Last 5 questions from the “Self-Report Altruism Scale” (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981). - Reliability: α=.51 - Positively correlated with measures of empathy and social responsibility. • 5-point Likert Scale • Higher Score indicates higher altruism

10. Construct Validity • In order to find the other concepts that were being measured, the scale was divided into two components. • A factor analysis was performed to divide the data into two components: • Component 1 consists of items 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 18, and 20. It was renamed Selflessness and had a reliability of 0.551. • Component 2 consists of items 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 17. It was renamed Self-centered and has a reliability of 0.585. • The total variance explained was 29.546%. Using a criterion of 0.4

12. Validation Plan • The validity of this measure is in question due to several factors: • First, massive user fatigue would dramatically increase the probability that the test users answered in response sets. • Response sets can easily be identified if reverse scoring is used. • It would be advisable to standardize the administration procedure. Since the participants were volunteers and did not take the assessment in one place, there is no way to know whether every participant had a standardized environment in which to take the assessment. • A stratified random sampling procedure could also be employed in order to get a more accurate estimate of ethnic/gender differences.

13. Validation Plan Cont’d • Another plan for validating the assessment would be to norm the test on a representative population (preferably one that mimics the real population demographics). • In order to establish greater convergent validity, one could compare the assessment to a measure of empathy. • Comparing the altruism assessment to a measure of selfishness could also be used to establish discriminant validity.

14. Altering Questions • More situational examples • Example: I feel good when I help someone finish their home work. • Vs. I feel good when I help someone. • Example: If I see someone who is injured, I feel compelled to help. • Vs. If I see someone who needs help I feel compelled to help.

15. References Cohen, R. & Swerdlik, M. (2005). Pychological Testing and Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York, 6th ed. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self- report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.