Introduction
Literature Review
Psychologists have previously considered societal norms, behaviors, attitudes, communication of knowledge and observations made by others as determinants of intergroup beliefs. Several studies have provided support for this premise. These studies have demonstrated that there exists consensus among the stereotypical beliefs of different individuals. These studies also showed that prejudice and stereotyping result from clearly defined and established group norms. The studies also found that racial attitudes of different individuals differ depending on the societal norms professed in the immediate environment. This shows that individuals exhibit relatively favorable intergroup attitudes that are dependent in the beliefs held by those in their immediate environment (Brown, 2010).
With increased scholarly work, psychologists focused on social cognition models that recognized an individual’s input in stereotype formation. This shifted the focus to intergroup contact as the primary foundation of prejudice. However, inherent difficulties have been recently noted in approaches pertaining intergroup contact. This has warranted psychologists to revisit norm theories in order to fathom the concept of prejudice. Additionally, there is renewed interest in the value of intergroup beliefs and social norms in explaining the foundations of prejudice.
These efforts have borne fruit in the recent past because scholarly work has established premise that social consensus information – information concerning perceived beliefs of other people – are capable of creating and altering intergroup attitudes. One particular research showed that when offered positive rather than negative information about the beliefs of other people, high prejudiced participants showed more favorable attitudes towards black Americans (Sechrist. & Milford, 2010). Another study showed that individuals altered their stereotypes towards national groups to make them similar to those beliefs professed by members of a desired in group. The study also showed that the same individuals altered their stereotypes to differ from the beliefs professed by an undesirable out group
In reaction to hostile and improper jokes, evaluation of discriminatory scenarios and expression of prejudice, research has shown that individuals use socially established norms. This shows that group contact has significance in disseminating societal norms, and that through contact with the people around us, we profess to assimilate their beliefs and by extension their prejudices. This goes further to show that prejudicial jokes in these environments are only tolerated if they identify and conform to societal beliefs and norms. This has dire implications on the subject of study (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2004).
The question under study is whether social consensus information has any influence on pleas for humanitarian aid. The literature above shows significant correlation between societal norms and beliefs and prejudicial tendencies. The beliefs of the society on humanitarian activities are determining factors for the success of a drive for humanitarian aid. Additionally, the perception of the society on a certain humanitarian agency is also influential in whether such an agency would successfully involve the community in humanitarian activities. Altering individual perceptions concerning the extent to which such stereotypes are influenced consensually can significantly change the stereotypes.
Summary of literature review
The literature review shows s that social consensus has an influence on whether people accord support to and donate to appeals for aid. However, there is reprieve in the fact that societal stereotypes can be changed significantly by influencing the extent to which one believes such stereotypes are influenced consensually. When making drives for humanitarian aid, officials should invest in public sensitization so as to enlighten them on the need foundations for the beliefs. Owing to this, the study will measure the following hypothesis:
- There is no significant correlation between action intention and support for humanitarian aid
- There is no significant correlation between social identity and action intention
- There is no significant correlation between social identity and support
Method
Participants
The participants involved in this experiment consisted of 46 students registered in an undergraduate psychology course. Out of 46 students, 38 were females and 8 were males. The experiment was conducted at the same place and same time for all participants. The mean age of the participants was 24 years old. 43 participants were Singaporean residents or citizens.
Materials
All participants were distributed with an information sheet. First page of the information sheet contained debrief of the study and participants had to complete an informed consent form for data to be used for academic research purposes. Second page revealed a newspaper article about Haitian earthquake which showed weak or strong support for the recovery efforts. There were three parts of questionnaire to be completed in the following page. Part one, participants had to state if article suggested if humanitarian aid was urgent and if there was strong donation response to the appeal.
Part two, participants had to report their thoughts, feelings and beliefs about humanitarian aid efforts. Ratings were made on 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) Likert-type scales. Cronbach’s alpha measured for three variables. For Support, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha=.66).For Action intention, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha=.73). Lastly for Social Identity, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha= .79). This shows that there were acceptable internal consistency and it’s alright to create a scale. For part 3 questionnaire, participants had to complete brief demographic information.
Procedure
The study was conducted in Kaplan University in a classroom setting. When the lesson started, students were distributed with the information sheet randomly by the lecturer. Lecturer divided the students into two different groups. One group received the Weak support where by10% of donation was met and the other group received the strong support where by 50% of donation was met. The students were in the dark about the weak social consensus group (10%) or strong social consensus group (50%) they were in, till the experiment was over. There wasn’t a time limit however the students completed the questionnaires within fifteen minutes.
Results
For Support, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha=.66).For Action intention, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha=.73). Lastly for Social Identity, the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha= .79). This shows that there were acceptable internal consistency and it’s alright to create a scale. T-tests were carried out on the data to compare between the means of the conditions. The table below shows the results for the T-tests comparing the mean of two conditions (social consensus – weak versus strong)
As espoused above, two distinct analyses were conducted on the data. There are t-tests and correlations on the three dependent variables in the study. The independent variables in the study were support, action intention and social identity. Table 1 show that the dependent variables are slightly higher in the strong social consensus when compared to weak social consensus. On the social identity measure, there is no significant difference between the weak social consensus groups and the strong social consensus groups. This suggests that the students of Kaplan University who showed strong support for Haiti humanitarian appeal (strong social consensus) also strongly identified as supporters of the Haiti humanitarian aid appeal. This is evidenced by t (44) = .801, p > 05. However, there was a significant difference between the descriptive norm for the weak social consensus and strong social consensus as evidenced by t (44) = 3.08, p <.05. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the support measure for strong social consensus and weak social consensus s evidenced by t (44) = 2.91, p >.05. Further analyses were conducted in order to define the variables even further. Correlations were conducted in order to determine the relationship between social identity, support and action intention. The table below shows the relationships between the dependent variables used in the study.
There is a statistically significant positive relationship between support and action intention. This shows that the more an individual supports the Haiti humanitarian aid appeal, the more likely they are to intend to donate, r (44) = .494, p <.05. There is also a statistically significant positive relationship between social identity and action intent. This shows that an individual is more likely to donate to the Haiti humanitarian aid appeal if they believe to be within the identity of a supporter of the humanitarian aid appeal, r (.44) = .450, p < .05.
Discussion
The study was designed to examine whether offering social consensus information – information concerning the behavior of other people- has influence on whether people accord support to and donate to appeals for aid. From the study, the hypothesis that providing people with social consensus information would influence whether people accord support to and donate to appeals for aid was not supported by the results of the study. More precisely, hypothesis two and three were supported by the results of the study. However, hypothesis one was refuted, and therefore denied. The results did not go exactly by the theories postulated and discussed in the literature review. This is because even after being provided with strong or weak consensus information, people still went ahead and showed support to and donated t appeals for humanitarian aid. There was correlation between the variable especially showing a strong relationship between the variables. Social identity was strongly correlated to intent and support. This can be understood in the view of the theories that social identity is specific to small caucuses in the communities.
However, from the general direction f the results, it would be conceptualized that the norms and beliefs of the small caucuses notwithstanding, people strongly identify with the bigger commonality that they are human beings and therefore will help their fellows when they are in need. This has serious implications in the field of psychology especially the psychology of human behavior. If human beings could look past their norms, beliefs and self identities in order to help others in distress, then the concept of humanitarian aid would take off significantly. Although this position may be challenged because of the constraints in the study, it is worth looking into because the possibilities are simply astounding.
The empathy altruism model recognizes the significance of individual feelings for other people. According to the proponents of this model, individuals help others because they have a genuine concern for the well being of the people in need (Stainton, 2003). If these feelings are significant enough, people might act outside their societal beliefs to help those in need. This might have pushed the participants in the weak consensus group to help in the humanitarian drive for Haiti. The social exchange theory on the other hand would see this as a socially negotiated process where the benefits outweighed the costs (Thomas & Iding, 2012). That people help in humanitarian aids because they stand to benefit from the situation. This is hardly the case because empathic dispositions allow the helpers to identify with those in needs and this drives their intent to want to help.
The current study has number of limitations that need consideration in future research. The sample size that was used in the study was insufficient. The respondents used in the study were twenty three. The caveat in such a sample size is that the results cannot be generalized to other populations because the sample size was not representative enough. A small sample size might also yield inaccurate results thereby needing a relatively large sample size for increased validity in the results. In the study, on group was provided with the weak social consensus questionnaire and another group with the strong consensus questionnaire. If the design of the study did not consider the inherent differences in the two groups, then the group differences might have accounted for different results. A consideration to be made is administering the two questionnaires to the same group of people, only this time with a larger composition and at different time.
Conclusion
Even though the study was challenged by a number of limitations, the results showed that empathy has a big influence on whether people donate or not towards humanitarian aid drives. As such, during humanitarian aid drives, it is important for people to understand to cause and extent of the crisis in order to contribute meaningfully.
References
Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cardwell, M., & Flanagan, C. (2004). Psychology A2: The complete companion. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Sechrist, G.B. & Milford, L.R. (2010). The influence of social consensus information on intergroup helping behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29:4, 365 – 374.
Stainton, R. W. (2003). Social psychology: Experimental and critical approaches. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Thomas, R. M., & Iding, M. K. (2012). Explaining conversations: A developmental social exchange theory. Lanham: Jason Aronson.
