Introduction
The project in this study is a quantitative study of analyzing racial relationships through prosocial behavior. As a quantitative research study, it has a formal and objective methodology for calculation the responses of the participants. The results will be obtained in numerical format and used to describe and test the results. The relevance of this project is exemplified in the UIUC campus life. As UIUC is a racially diverse campus many groups still hold on to their cultural groups and do not interact with other students of different races. The pockets of the racial groups are not integrating with each other and this paper is an effort to determine the feelings of integration and possible paths to integration.
The primary hypothesis is “When an individual witness’s prosocial behavior between two people of different races, the individual witnessing the event will be less likely to exhibit prosocial behavior than other individuals who witness prosocial behavior between people of the same race.”
Supporting literature on this hypotheses is offered in an The articles supporting this hypothesis begin with an article by Janet Kistner that studied social interaction among peer groups which proved that peers exhibit more prosocial behavior towards those of the same race.. The study additionally looked at the history of prosocial interaction of the children who were abused. In our study we are not looking into the background of the students but into their current status. A study of the adolescent behavior to the prosocial behavior was accessed in the article written by Sophia Bradley that studied how adolescents respond to prosocial behavior when alone and when with peers. This study looked at the peer influence process that has been documented for a range of adolescent behaviors. The findings indicate that peer pressure is not always adverse in the development of the adolescents. Some prosocial behaviors are more influential than others in positive outcomes. One of the outcomes is the racial biases that teens develop. Peer influence may have an outcome on this study. Her study lends to greater positive influence on developmental norms. The internalization of prosocial peer norms is a learned behavior. The third article was a literature review by Nancy et al. (2010) that focused on several empirical studies related to prosocial behavior, intergroup relationships, and their correlates. One important point related to our topic was that empathy and sympathy were positively correlated with prosocial behavior.
Methods
The methods of this study included dependent and independent variables based on the hypothesis. The two conditions that determine the variables are first of all the experimental as the interracial prosocial video. The control variable is the race prosocial video. The variables are manipulated in a controlled group experiment. Thirty participants for each condition were entered into the study. They were a random sampling from friends, dorms, the meeting places in the UIUC campus including the quad, library atrium and other central places that are well populated by all races.
The dependent variable included the manipulation of an interracial video. The measurement of which is a comparison survey. The results of the survey will be calculated by the prosocial behavior between the experimental and control groups. The Control variable is expected to perform prosocial behavior on a scale from one to seven.
Qualtrics is a survey service used to develop the actual survey used in the experiment. This technique is used for many college surveys because it meets the informed consent guidelines of personal information. Students are not intimidated to participate in the survey knowing that their personal information is secure. This survey tools was developed from the University of Texas and uses many of the features that are essential to student surveys including the ability to prevent multiple submissions and other control features. The surveys are user friendly and accommodate multiple levels of reporting capabilities to ensure that the accumulation of data is impeccable.
Results
The expectations in this experiment are that there will be a small possible difference in the likelihood to perform prosocial behavior after viewing the video. The difference will be significant if the survey indicates wide swings in the results from the two groups. It is our expectation the results will be according to our hypothesis that people will be more likely to be prosocial if they first see others being prosocial.
The hypothesis in this study is proven that the hypothesis is wrong, or rejected. Meaning there's no difference between difference race and same race when it comes to prosocial behavior. Our data shows that the P-value is 0.698, which means that our study is not significant and the hypothesis is not supported. For our study, we made two videos (one demonstrating same-race prosocial behavior, the other demonstrating different race prosocial behavior) and conducted a survey using Qualtrics. We found 30 participants for each condition and had them watch the videos and responded to the survey questions, each participant had a 50/50 chance of getting one of the two videos (either same-race prosocial or different race prosocial), but the survey questions are all the same for both conditions.
Discussion
The outcome of the study is a little surprising in that we did expect a small difference in the prosocial behavior of the different groups. This was expected because the term prosocial behavior generally means that positive actions benefit others. These reactions are prompted by empathy values and a sense of personal responsibility. Everyone is born with some type of personal empathy and so the racial behavior is a learned behavior.
The hypothesis was not supported in that it was rejected. The hypothesis is wrong as it means there is no difference between the different races and the same race when it comes to prosocial behavior. The result of P-value is 0.698 means that the study is not significant and the hypothesis is therefore not supported.
The limitations of the study are perhaps the sample was all form the UCIC campus and therefore does not represent a total sampling of population. Normally higher economic status and education tend to sway antisocial behavior. Learning to interact with others is a function of education so that if the study were to be duplicated in a less education population the results may change. Future directions for the study would include first using a new population and secondly to review the survey questions to check for their validity in testing the prosocial behavior. Also any contributing factors such as events at the school at the time of the showing can be included as a part of the review process.
Another avenue would be to discuss the hypothesis with some of the teachers and faculty of the school to receive an indication of their views on the racial relationships on the campus to ascertain whether there is a unique dynamic going on within the diverse groups of the campus. Additionally efforts can be made for suggestions for another study to see if the same results are replicated with another group at a different time frame. During certain times of the year the students are busy with finals and this study was given during midterms which may have a significant different in results.
Based on our research at the beginning of the study a great difference in the control versus the experimental group was not expected. However a significant difference was expected to prove the hypothesis. The hypothesis being proven wrong is not an anticipated outcome. Another attempt will be tried with the same parameters and two different groups to check if the same type of results are obtained. This is the next step in the process. Also we will need to review the wording of the questions to gauge their reliability. Qualtircs offers some additional reading into the formatting of questions on the survey so perhaps some review of the suggestions can be included in the rewrites. They also have a consulting service to help with the design and that might be something to attempt to get an unbiased approach to the questions.
The suggestion for future study will be needed to concur with the findings in this study. Perhaps on the same campus again and then in another setting would be the best scenario.
References
Choukas-Bradley, S. (2015). Peer influence, Peer Status. Researachgate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283493592_Peer_Influence_Peer_Status_and_Prosocial_Behavior_An_Experimental_Investigation_of_Peer_Socialization_of_Adolescents'_Intentions_to_Volunteer. Retrieved April 2016.
Kistner, J. (1991). Social interactions and peer perceptions of young physically abused children. Child Development Journal, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1756669 Retreieved April 2016.
Quantitative Research Studies.
www.researchproposalsforhealthprofessionals.com/quantitative_research. Retrieved April 2016
Services, I. T. (2015). Overview. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from Qualtrics Survey Instruments: https://www.utexas.edu/its/survey/
