Final Paper

The results of the part III of the survey are that most participants indicated lower (M = 2.90) and higher (M = 2.22) ratings for the survey on whether the friends of Michael are stingy. A huge group indicates their viewpoints which display that the general ratings made by these individuals state that the donations made are very low and thus these individuals are only giving a small percentage of what they have. There is a very small significance difference indicated (Sig = 0.006, F = 5.37) between groups meaning that the donations considered high, low and medium has very limited differences. Finally, we ran multiple comparisons to determine the perceptions of people regarding donating money and the availability of money. See Appendix Table 4.

Discussion Study One

We made predictions that the respondents would be highly likely to donate more when they had money available and this led to their perception of classifying the people involved in this scenario as stingy. In addition, most of them gave low rating to statement displaying that Michael’s friends were caring since their contributions are very low. Considering that this decision of helping children is a noble quest, most participants seemed willing to give up most of the income they could get for the operations. Consequently, it was forecasted that individuals who were willing to give up less of the money they had to donate to children in need, would be less judgment all and would rate low ratings to statements such as friend of Michael are stingy while rating highly the statements indicating that Michael’s friends are caring. The findings support these predictions as most individuals who preferred to donate less stated that the friends of Michael are caring and are in no way stingy. The individuals who ought to donate an average amount of the $100 mostly were indifferent in that some thought that the individuals in the scenario are stingy and caring while others thought they were not.

The main reason for variance in the results is the difference in how participants viewed the matter at hand. Some thought that it was far better to give up money and help a child out there whereas had a viewpoint that it would be crucial to give up less and save more for themselves. The personal opinions of people on various matters especially when it comes to kindness and generosity could have created the gap between their capabilities to donate.

Study Two

Our beliefs is what influences the distinctive outcomes of social influence. This is also attributed to the fact that our behaviors tend to be close to those who tends to be close to us. This change usually tend to occur voluntarily without the intention of the person changing intending to change (Hale, & Hamilton, 2016). From research, it has been revealed that human being tend to have an inmate similarity for coordination as well as conformity. This is usually very important to culture, groups as well as to dialogical relationships (Hodges, 2014). This is specifically true that the dynamics of cultures, groups, as well as relationships do depend on tendencies for divergence, differentiation, as well as dissenting. From research, there is a remarkable convergent account of an intricate relationship of divergence and convergence in various contexts. This means that there is a conversational alignment. Imitation, mimicking, and synchrony among others all reveal a complex pattern of selectivity and fidelity which has now and then continued to surprise many researchers.

According to Hodges (2014), there is a belief that individuals are most likely to act like social personified dialogical partners learning how to act in ways which tends to favor them as well as their habitat? Therefore in this case, the hypothesis that is in test is that understanding tends to be an ongoing operation which tends to seek deeper as well as intricacy in our knowing as well as doing. For instance, the children have been found being more likely to copy casually extraneous actions which an adult do perform. But it has been revealed that individuals will tend to imitate things partially and that it is far too selective to some form of involuntary motor imitation. The people, therefore, do not follow others completely but the rater act selectively and discreetly to be loyal to the world.

According to De Freitas, et al. 2019, there is an indication as to why individuals tend to be anonymous charitable giving as well as whether and how the attributions of the donor identity or the beneficiary are affected when one is revealed to the other. In trying to find out why people are very concerned regarding the anonymity of the donor, credit or concealed benefits, it is found out that people differentiate anonymous from public gifts and they also appear to be finer distinctions basing on their mutual understanding of the donor and the beneficiary.

The author has found out that habitability judgments are fashioned by psychological systems for the choice of the best cooperative partners. This is to show that people have cognitive systems that they use to detect and to keep trail of signs indicating a character for generosity which includes how a donor gives their donations. This article hypothesis that the judgment of people about the habitability of a donor falls into a hierarchy since our righteousness intuitions are related to assessments of corporative partners. “The more the donors can expect to receive favors in return through either direct or indirect reciprocity, the less charitable they appear” (De Freitas, et al., 2019).

In the article “ motivation to support charity linked events after exposure to Facebook appeals”, the authors looks at the effect of Facebook on maintaining or solidifying existing offline relationships to allow people in the development of a public profile and to participate psychologically with the people they are able to share connections (Schattke, Ferguson, & Paulin, 2018). Social identity theory is very crucial in explaining the motivation for pro-social theory. Social identification for instance is found to every critical in participation in social movements.

According to the author of this article, there is a very big correlation between online and offline support intentions. Women who were involved in this study have been found to conform, in a way that suggests that they are empathetic, selfless, and generous as when compared to men. The study supports the hypothesis that the greater the emotional identification with the cause is, the strong the support is in both offline and online events. The human being will often mimic and imitate others without them knowing. Mimicry has social benefits as it can help in building rapport between different groups of people or between two people. Copying others can broadly range from a non-conscious process to a conscious process (Genschow, et al., 2018).

In conclusion, people may sometimes end up making choices that they would not have otherwise made without them knowing as people tend to mimic the choices and behaviors of other people. Similarly, some people will may want to do the opposite of the others just to show that they are unique that the others by making a different choice. These social cues are everywhere from face to face to online interactions which makes it difficult to escape what others are doing on our own choices.

Methods Study Two

Participants

One hundred and seven participants in the new sample for study two, 74% (n = 144) were recruited to participate. Out of the 107 participants, 49% (n = 52) were male and 51% (n =55) were female. Participants ages ranged from 18 to 70 (M = 24.95, SD = 9.13). The sample population consisted 34% Caucasian (N = 36), 49% Hispanic (N = 52), 2% Native Indian (N = 2), 8% African American (N = 17), 4% Asian American (N = 5), and 3% of participants reporting “Other” (N =3). See Appendix Table 6

Materials and Procedure

In the second research, a group of 107 individuals was selected from the prior sample group used in the initial research to represent the sample number needed. The first study had necessitated the participants to read the Facebook post that is being assessed; the posting involves a gentleman named Michael who requests that his followers to contribute to "Unlikelyheroes," and his friends' replies commit to assist in the donation. In the research, we included only two conditions: high and low, and the medium state was eliminated because it does not have much difference with the top state in the first study. The significant difference in this second study is its concentration in the charitableness independent variable to deeply evaluate whether the extent in which the participants would involve themselves in an honorable course of giving out to those who are vulnerable and in need of assistance (Walther et al., 2018). In this study, we only classify participants' willingness to contribute as either high charitableness or low charitableness based on their responses to the questions regarding donating the available money that they might have.

In the first study, we collected a lot of data regarding how numerous dependent variables like the friends of Michael friends appear as if they are individuals who care about others, donation amounts (money), and the friends of Michael give an impression that they are mean. In study two, we are majorly focusing on donation amount (money), which is the dependent variable, by identifying the responses of the amount of money from $0 to $100 that participants would be willing to give out to ensure that vulnerable people such as homeless children get helped. We will evaluate the donation amount (money) using the four conditions, that is, high contributors whose ability to give is high, high participant with little contribution to the charity, low participant soaring giving capability, and low participant minimized capability to give out.

Results Study Two

Testing the initial reliant variable, necessitated that we run the 2 X 2 ANOVA( good but you can say that you will be doing the ANOVA up in the procedure so you can just report in results section) with the state (elevated and little) and charitableness (low and soaring) as the variables which are independent and the donation amount (money) as the variable which is dependent. The outcomes show that there is no statistically noteworthy impact for charitableness on the amount that is donated, F (1, 103) = 16.80, P =.000 (if it is not significant then it should be p>.05…what you have here is basically that there is a very large sig diff). It shows that the differences that exists in the donation of money between the high condition (M = 28.87, SD = 14.53) and the low condition (M = 16.48, SD = 13.41)(the results are all a bit off) are not meaningful. Nevertheless, a statistically noteworthy divergence can be seen in charitableness, the independent variable, F (1, 107) = 0.876, P =.351. The individuals who contribute more, (M = 26.28, SD = 13.26) were seen to believe that individuals were likely to donate more money when there is the availability of finances than the participants who contribute very little, (M = 19.67, SD = 16.13).

Besides, there exists a relation involving the ability of the individuals in the sample to contribute and the condition of the scenario, F(1, 103) = 1.014, P =.316, indicating that the charitableness differed significantly among the high participant elevated capacity to give out (M = 31.09, SD = 11.76), high participant little ability to give to charity (M = 25.48, SD = 17.74), low participant higher capability to contribute to charity (M = 16.33, SD = 10.60), and low participant minimal ability to give to charity (M = 16.54, SD = 14.47) as displayed in the Appendix Table 7.

Discussion Study Two

Even though the second study displays that the amount of money available to a person influences their charitableness based on the purpose of the charity and thoroughly assessed the likelihood of people to give to those in need when they have financial resources, the presented outcomes do not clearly show this argument. Considering that all participants had access to money, their variance in charitableness did not have a statistical significance to demonstrate that they believed others would donate more when they were given the same amount (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). The results show that individuals who had thought of giving more to the charity were highly likely to classify the individuals who contributed less money as stingy and seem to believe that Michael's friends were not very caring about helping Michael meet his birthday wish of donating to support children in need.

The results indicate that the individuals with low donations had justified that Michael's friend was willing to give all they had and would most probably suggest that other individuals donate less just like they did. Moreover, individuals in the low category who had at least had higher charitableness seemed to be more concerned with the course and believed that there was a need or Michael's friends to give more to the charity (Hallinan et al., 2020). It is clear to see that as much as all individuals valued the course of donating and helping those in needs, individuals with high charitableness would classify friends of Michael as stingy and with reduced capability to care about the charity and those individuals who were willing to donate a considerably low amount of money rated the impression given in a way to suggest that the friends of Michael did a great job and helped as expected.

In conclusion, the results show a substantial statistical difference between the participants in high condition, predominantly between the elevated giving and little altruistic respondents. The individuals in the elevated charitableness category believed that Michael's friends had not been very concerned with what Michael had posted, and their commitments show that they are stingy (Hallinan et al., 2020). However, people in the low charitableness section seemed to believe that the contributions promised were high and, therefore, rated their impressions in favor of Michael's friends.

General Discussion

From the first study, it was predicted that, the respondents would be highly likely to donate more when they had money available and this led to their perception of classifying the people involved in this scenario as stingy. While from the second study, it was predicted that, that the amount of money available to a person influences their charitableness based on the purpose of the charity and thoroughly assessed the likelihood of people to give to those in need when they have financial resources. It’s important to state that from the findings on the first study, they were in support of the predictions since it was observed that those individuals who had less money would sacrifice and give the little they had to the child support as those with more money preferring to give more to help the child.

On the other hand, from the second study findings, the findings were somehow contradicting due to the fact that the individuals who had less money seemed to see the little contribution from those who had less money that they were caring and charitable, while for those who had more money observed it as an act of not caring form the category of individuals who had low money to give less. On their side, they were willing to give more to support the child. This findings specifically resulted into two understandings concerning charity that the amount of money determines how caring and charitable an individual is. In general terms, it’s clear that the findings from the two studies were in support of the predictions made, however the general conclusion to the reader is that the amount of money will also determine the level of caring as well as charity of an individual more especially from those with a lot of money.

Both the first and second studies had the limitation of not considering the individuals in the middle level income. Maybe if they could have considered this group, the findings would have changed. Secondly, the number of individuals or the respondents were not enough to make a solid conclusion, the findings can be described as the generalized ones. Therefore, it’s my proposal that the future studies do include the middle level income individuals besides increasing the sample size of the study. This could have a potential impact to the study results.

References: