PakikisamaKnowing Others

March 2018

Villamor, DanmarkBaria, Tricia

Furing, GinalynVelasco, ChristineVillarosa, Azhriel

ABSTRACT

The Social experiment was conducted to know if the Filipino will show Pakikisama towards their fellow man. In the different aspects, The Pakikisama can be seen such as building their relationship towards the other people. The result showed that many of Filipinos despite of their busy schedules has the time to help and showed pakikisama to other people. Some of them didn’t show Pakikisama because they are in a hurry and they don’t have enough time to take the favor from the dizer and some of them were not totally interested in helping or giving their time. It also showed that they tend to help the other people based on the favor that was asked to them. Keywords: Pakikisama

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this social experiment is to know if the Filipino people will show “Pakikisama” towards their fellow Filipino citizen. The study helps to know if they still have this typical Filipino trait “Pakikisama” and if they are willing to take the favor from their fellow citizen. No matter what kind of status that the people have in life and situation they are in but still remain to give concerned and kindness to others. It is to study this trait in detail. Pakikisama is a basic tendency for Filipinos, and is expressed in their private lives, their public workplaces, and in their relationship with their neighbors.

This indicates that this is a typical Filipino trait. The term Pakikisama is derived from two tagalong words: the root word “sama”, accompany, “go along” (Lynch, 1963) or “come along with” and the prefix “paki”, please or kindly. Pakikisama refers to an interpersonal relationship where people are friendly with each other. Pakikisama is sometimes considered a norm or a guide to achieve or practice other values, such as pakikipagkapwa-tao, katahimikan (KTH)’s and Smooth Interpersonal Relations (SIR). In this sense, we might think of it as one of the forms of either pakikipagkapwa. It means even without Pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa-tao, katahimikan, (SIR) is still possible. It

is sometimes considered a constituent or a part of a larger value, such as pagkakasundo, pakikipagkapwa, and (SIR). Sometimes Pakisama is considered a value itself however is conceived of many conflicting ways.

Pakikisama may leads to pakikipagkapwa-tao, that is, treating and dealing with people, on equal terms and respecting other person rights and winning his respect for you it leads to pagpapahalaga sa kapwa or concerns for others it makes a Filipino group oriented and to think together. It makes the Filipino community oriented (tayo mentality). There is mutual or community sharing among them (Andres, 1986). Some recent study shows the degree of behavioral intention towards in the context of “Pakikisama”. “Pakikisama can be seen in the school, workplace, and to the whole community.

Filipino’s showed “Pakikisama to their fellow man by helping and sharing their work and making some interpersonal relationship. Then, throughout their different activities that they have such as in school events, team building activities in their workplace and programs that their community has, they also make conversation that can make them more friendly and productive in their work (Crespo, 2012). As a relation to this study, the concept of conformity is related. Conformity is when people comply in a certain group of people to make them fit in the group. It is often used to indicate an agreement to the majority position, brought about either by a desire ‘fit in’ or be liked (normative) or because of a desire to be correct (informational), or simply to conform to a social role (identification). The purpose of this study is to know if some people laid their trust upon others and considering what the experimenter told also testing if Filipino had a “Pakikisama” traits upon others.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

The study consists of fifteen (15) randomly selected participants. This includes 6 males and 9 females.

Materials

Leaflets have been used and given to the participants. Cellphones and cameras were used to record the video.

Procedure

The experiment was started when the experimenter finds a perfect area to conduct the given experiment. One of the experimenter disguise as dizer gave a leaflet and asked the participant to go read and keep it until they reach a certain area that has been told. The participants were told that there’s someone observing the experimenter. After they reached the certain point, the experimenter will debrief the participants about the experiment.

RESULTS

Table 1

Frequency PercentageMale 6 40 %Female 9 60 %TOTAL 15 100 %

Table 1 shows that the majority of the participants are female with the frequency of 9 or 60% while the least of the participants are male with the frequency of 6 or 40%.

Table 2

Frequency PercentageAccepted 10 66.67 %Rejected 5 33.33 %Total 15 100.00 %

Table 2 shows that the people accepted the leaflet and showed pakikisama has the frequency of 10 or 66.67%. The people rejected the leaflet and don’t show pakikisama have the frequency of 5 or 33.33

DISCUSSION

Pakikisama is getting along with other people. Every day, people need to get along with other people to survive.

The result shows that most of the participants had traits of Pakikisama in terms of encountering strangers also by telling those participants that the dizer needed the job that he had and if they didn’t comply and also told them that he will lose his job. This study showed that some Filipino’s are willing to accept favor on their fellow citizen also implicates that Filipinos are ready to help others when they see themselves in that particular situation. In this study, the researchers found out that Filipino fellow citizen in terms of Pakikisama.

REFERENCES

http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/philippines/sub5_6c/entry-3868.html

http://www.livinginthephilippines.com/culture-and-people/philippine-culture/398-alternatives-concepts-and-other-valueshttp://randommusingsof strangemind.blogspot.com/2011/07/pakikisama-good-filipino-training-or.html?m=1

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/ncjopson/conceptual-analysis-of-pakikisama

How gullible are we

March 2018

Magpayo, Jose Mari R.Bautista, Jeramaica

Saudan, DianneLaurel, Pialyn

Pangan, Kayecilyn

INTRODUCTIONThis experiment is used to measure the gullibility of a person and

how they easily believe about particular subject without any knowledge. It will examine the Barnum Effect, then research on social influence, cognitive dissonance and, the Enriquez Kapwa Model. This

will also determine the value in understanding why some people are more likely to be manipulated by others.

ABSTRACTTo test the gullibility of a person, this experiment aims to test if the subjects of the experiment are expected to believe a hoax, in which is a courtesy of an experiment that was made in America, by changing and tweaking some subjects to suit the Philippine college students.

BODY OF REPORT Being gullible is often common in the norms of our society, a lot of

people can truly be fooled here and there. Which is driven by emotions of a person by exploiting ones lack of knowledge and to express one’s beliefs to another.

The method that we use is inspired by an experiment made by a student at Eagle Rock Junior High at the Greater Idaho Falls Science fair, as he was attempting to show how conditioned we become to alarmist practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. But in this case we changed the total elimination of dihydrogen monoxide, into vaccines, which is an occurring theme in what’s currently happening in different countries.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe primary purpose for this experiment is to prove the gullibility

of a person as a means of proving that Filipino citizens are easily fooled by fake news and fear mongering of different social media websites. But in this one the experiment partake to make a petition and do the experiment in a college classroom.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTSThirty-two participants completed all conditions of this experiment. Participants were all students of BSCT-3C at the Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST).

APPARATUS/ MATERIALSThe petition paper was used to measure each participant’s own opinion regarding the topic. The petition aims to determine if they agree to ban vaccines for it is one of the primary reasons of Autism, this is also an indication if they believe that the given research information is fact, false or in fact not true at all.

PROCEDUREThe experiment starts with one of our members explaining the situation and the petition that they’re going to sign. Just like the experiment that’s based on, we also said the following health reasons: (1) The combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, which allows the entrance of encephalopathy proteins; (2) Thimerosal, an ethyl mercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system.(3) The simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system.

RESULTSThe results are highly as expected, due to the different rows of seats; the two groups have different results with surprisingly same results in different answers.One group in the number 15 said yes, while the people who answered under the other 15 said undecided, and lastly; the minimum of 2 said no. Here are some of the comments that’s inside the Petition:

“Sa paglago ng technology about vaccines, bakit ngayon lang pre-prevent ang issue sa autism?”“Sino ba naka discover na ang vaccine ay nagiging cause nga autism” “If that’s the case, then do we stil have to use cavvien to our future children if it may cause autism?”“Bakit? Kailangan pang ivvacine ang isang tao kung nag ca-cause naman ito ng Autism?”

As

the comments that’s included here, the experiment is quite surprising because not all of them get the point of the petition yet some people do, and the people who mostly said yes, have some comments that contradicts their answer, therefore concluding that given the same situation in a common citizen can cause fear mongering.

Yes47%

No6%

Undecided47%

The answers of students in CIT

Yes No Undecided

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATED PURPOSE AND RESULT

Lastly, the conclusion of our experiment’s relationship between the stated purpose and results is as what the experiment’s plan in the first place. To concur the known apprehension of knowledge between people and science, it seems that some of us citizens became to alarmist practicing science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. However this is not the case; the division between people who picked Yes, No and undecided has a clear differentiation. As different as it is; some comments who said yes still wants evidence pertaining the topic which highly becomes different to the experiment that we’ve based our work with. In the end, we think that this is a great conclusion to our experiment, for it gathered new results that not all people are easily gullible or easy to be fooled, and in fact with our generation today, we can still prove that a lack of evidence and junk science can still make a lot people cautious about the petition or situation that they’re given with and still in regard depends on the persons answer, beliefs and known innate knowledge.

Individual Differences in Helping Behavior

Yes86%

Undecided12%

One who knew the chemical was wa-ter 2%

The chemical H20 experiment

Yes UndecidedOne who knew the chemical was water 4th Qtr

March 2018

Arroyo, Luzielle Mutya A.

Bobis, Marisol M.

Cave, Jean Klaudine M.

Lumagbas, Glerissa S.

Soriano, Gracefel B.

ABSTRACT

This study looks at the effect of individual differences in helping behavior. Five (5) female students will act and dropped the wallet in the public place (mall). The students known as actors. The aim of this

study is to know if the participants will help the experimenter by giving back the things that they dropped and others are waited until someone will help them. This also refers to voluntary actions intended to help the others. The bystander effect is a common example, where people will calculate the consequences before they act. The findings showed that male is more effective to help the female who is in need. This study could be used to encourage not only cross-sex helpful behavior but same sex helpful behavior in society.

INTRODUCTION

Helping behavior is described as a kind or helpful act that benefits another living being (Myers, 2005, Vaughan & Hogg,1995) both physically and psychologically (Wispe, 1972). A behavior that is viewed positively by society is known as prosocial behavior. Before someone is willing to help another person, a decision needs to be made, will they or will they not help this person. Generally the helper needs to understand what is happening and asses the costs and rewards, if they do or do not decide to help. Other people have a tendency to help those who have been in the same situation just like them before, helping other people varies in a matter of similarity experiences and other personal biases. The other term for helping behavior of a person is altruism which means helping others without expecting anything in return.

Understanding helping behavior is relevant.  There may be practical applications of helping behavior experiments. People make attribution about helping others; Helpfulness can then be a guide in the future when helping is an option. A self-attribution can be even more powerful than reinforcement for learning helping behavior. Often people help others simply because something tells them, they should. One way to account for why a person helps others, therefore, is to say that it is right. There are some factors why people want to get involved in helping others and also why they don’t want too. Most likely in person they observed first to help them or to help when they are in a good mood.

The bystander effect is a common example, where people will calculate the consequences before they act. Particularly in a populated place where people are less likely to offer their assistance (Vaughan & Hogg). Bystander may not help unless they believe that an emergency exists. (Cocking et al., 2009). Time pressure is another factor that affects people to help others. They intend to offer help but they are in a bit of pressure in time.

Some helping behaviors may reflect altruism. Altruism would reflect being motivated to help someone by a selfless concern for the person's welfare. Not all helping behaviors may reflect altruism. Some helping behaviors may reflect egoistic motivation. Egoistic motivation with respect to helping behaviors reflects selfish reasons for helping behavior. For example, helping behavior may reflect a concern about being viewed as a kind or nice person by others.

The aim of this study is to know if the participants will help the experimenter and give it back to her. This also refers to voluntary actions intended to help the others, with reward regarded or disregarded. This is whether to help or benefit another individual or group of individual, such as self-awareness, sharing, controlling, rescuing and helping

METHOD

Participant

This experiment consisted of nine (9) males and nine (9) females. The participant had an opportunity whether to help the experimenter or not. All the participants were selected randomly. The experiment was conducted at SM North EDSA.

Apparatus

The materials that the experimenter used are wallet, play money and coins. A cell phone was used to take a videos and photos.

Procedure

1. There are randomly selected participants.2. The five (5) experimenter will act and as well as an observer

to take the results.3. The experimenter intentionally dropped the wallet.4. Once the wallet drop the results when then calculated.5. Lastly, the experimenter will give the consent to the

participant.

RESULTS

GENDER OF HELPER HELP NO HELPFemale Helper 6 3Male Helper 7 2Total 13 5

It can be gleaned in table 1, the frequency distribution of female actor help received. On the other hand, the female Actors collected eighteen (18) possible responses, nine (9) from female helper and nine (9) from male helper. As presented in the table, the data shows that female actors received help from six (6) female helpers and seven (7) male helpers.

Consequently, the participants received four (4) no help from the female helper compared to the male helper which only received two (2) no help. It emphasizes that the male helpers are more likely to help female who are in need. However, females were slightly less helpful than males in cross-sex helpers.

DISCUSSION

The findings show that male helpers are more effective helpers than the female helpers when the females are in need. It shows that male helper and female helper willingly to back the dropped thing to the female in need.

For the overall outcome and understanding the helping behavior, some helpers may be able to increase helpfulness toward those who most need help in their society. Some others are just waiting for the other who will help them and others are voluntarily help.

REFERENCES

1. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.

2. Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., &Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

3. Oliner, S. P., &Oliner, P. M. (1992). Altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press.

4. https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/prosocial-behavior/helping-behavior/

Obedience to Authority

March 2018

Jansett Marie G. Asuncion, Jansett Marie

. Cagas, Erica Mae

Camilet, Cristy

Laudit, Denise

Roxas, Camille Fatima

ABSTRACT

The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority. Obedience to authority is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted that way. This experiment used the foot-in-the-

door technique. Results indicated that most of the male kids complied with the command given by the authority figure even though they are displeasing. Obedience is a necessary element of life. However, blind obedience to unquestioned authority is bad.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to know if an authority figure can encourage young boys who are at the age of 3-11 to commit acts against their sense of right and wrong. To determine the different reaction and perception of the said participants when the researchers gave them the task that they will do.

Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted this way (McLead, S.A 200710) Obedience is further instilled when people respond to perceived figures of legitimate authority, within a situation that also has ideological justification. Looking at situations where people resist authority through disobedience further illustrates the precedents for obedience and the perceived costs of dissent. The study of obedience to authority, although sharing in common aspects from other forms of social influence, is however distinctive in its process and in the way in which it motivates individual’s compliance. Unlike compliance or conformity within group processes, obedience has a public perception of being involuntary and is an explicit and overt form of social influence in which people fully believe in the legitimacy of external authority itself, as opposed to the more voluntary forms of social influence such as conformity to a majority, in which an individual acts according to normative and informational influences. Although obedience shares aspects in common with other forms of social influence with regards to how behaviour impacts on interpersonal relationships, the subjective reasons for why people feel they have to be obedient necessitates a different approach in its explanation. There are four factors that determined obedience: (1) Emotional distance of the victim, when the

participant was emote and the experimenter heard no complaints, nearly all obeyed calmly to the end. (2) Closeness and legitimacy of the authority, the physical presence of the experimenter affects obedience. The authority must be perceived as legitimate. (3) Institutional authority, the prestige of the authority is accounted. (4) Liberating effects of group influence. (Milgram, 1974)

However, the reasons why people accept authority cannot simply be reduced to the influence of social norms, as for obedience to occur it is necessary for the individual to firstly identify the figure of authority, and in particular to recognize them as having the legitimate power to have the right to exercise their authority. Social influence is unable to operate without a basis of power. In a primitive and extreme sense, the influence that compels people to obey authority may derive from the power to reward or punish. If an individual is aware that there are definite negative outcomes for deviation and or positive outcomes for obedience, they will be inclined through personal fear to obey the will of the authority. This form of social influence is also operative in compliance, when the outward behaviour of an individual is affected although there is no conversion to a belief in the legitimacy of one’s own actions and the orders from authority. Although this scenario I may be common, there are often other more subtle and interesting examples of how obedience as a process of social influence does not necessarily rely on the power to reward or punish. (French and Raven 1959) Studies on obedience have shown that the rates for obedience in these situations are nevertheless subject to certain conditions under which orders are carried out. Milgram varied, for example, factors such as the proximity of the experimenter relative to the teacher in a series of experiments. These findings showed obedience levels dropped sharply when subjects were in the physical presence of the authority figure, suggesting that people are more likely to be obedient in conflicting situations when they are closely monitored. This shares similarities with, for example, Latane’s social impact theory, which suggests that immediacy of the social influence in group situations is a significant factor in compliance and conformity (Turner, 1991).

METHODS

Participants

The experiment was consisted of six (6) different young boys who are at the age of 3-11 and are residing in Tondo, Manila. The said participants were randomly selected in the said place and were given information about the experiment.

MaterialsCameras and cell phones to record every scene of the experiment.

ProcedureThe experimenter asked the demographic profile of the

participant including their names and their ages. She also asked the participant what he wants to be when he grows up. After a small conversation, the experimenter introduced a girl to the participant then asked some question about what they can say about her. The experimenter instructed the participant to touch the girl. Then, the experimenter asked the subject to slap the girl.

RESULT

33%

Participants

ObeyedDisobeyed

67%

The graph shows that 67% of the participants obeyed the experimenter’s request, while the other 33% made a stand against hurting a girl.

DISCUSSION

In everyday situations, people obey orders because they want to get rewards, because they want to avoid the negative consequences of disobeying, and because they believe an authority is legitimate. People obey easy commands first and then feel compelled to obey more and more difficult commands. This process is called entrapment, and it illustrates the foot-in-the-door phenomenon.

We learn obedience from primary socialization to obey the authority starting with the home where we obey our parents. Then secondary socialization, in the school where we have to obey school rules for the good of order without question in spite of our own beliefs and standards. Also, there is social control where police orders people how to behave in society

REFERENCES:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/ppd/files/gdp-teach&learn_psy&soc_essay.pdf

http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/socialpsychology/section7.rhtml

http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2014/07/obedience-authority-anddomination.html

How prejudices affects Attitude towards Other

March 2018

Thence Marvel Amen

Naomie Marcelino

Marife Samson

Alyanah Bangayan

Heydei Gapayao

ABSTRACT

This study is consisted of 10 participants. (seven) 7 helped the experimenter and the (three) 3 participants did not help because some of them have an important matters and seemingly faced a time pressure also thought that the experimenter is making fun they were confused about the experimenter appearance. And this experiment study how other people perceive others in terms of the differences that they see upon others and how they react to the people who seem new to them. It also showed that impression has a big factor on the experiment because some participants helped the experimenter willfully by giving directions to him despite of the experimenter’s appearance. The result of this study shown that prejudice affects other participants and also it can be state that some people were more likely to help others in spite of their appearance.

INTRODUCTION

This experiment is all about how other people approach others despite of their physical appearance and how they perceive others according to their sexual preferences. The objective of this experiment is to know how other people in a different society accept others based on their norms. The social groups we belong help form our identities (Tajfel, 1974). These differences may be difficult for some people to reconcile, which may lead prejudice toward people who are different. Prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group (Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010).

Prejudice is common against people who are members of an unfamiliar cultural group. Thus, certain types of education, contact, interactions, and building relationships with members of different cultural groups can reduce the tendency toward prejudice. In fact, simply imagining interacting with members of different cultural groups might affect prejudice. In contrast, stereotypes have traditionally been defined as specific beliefs about group, such as descriptions of what members of a particular group look like, how they behave or their abilities. As such, stereotypes are cognitive representations of how members of a group are similar to one another and different from members of other groups. Importantly, people can be aware of cultural stereotypes and have cognitive representation of those beliefs without personally endorsing such stereotypes without feelings of prejudice and without awareness that such stereotypes could affect one judgment and behavior.

Prejudice and stereotyping are generally considered to be the product of adaptive processes to simply and otherwise complex world so that people can devote more cognitive resources to other tasks. Prejudice is an unfavorable or negative attitude towards a group of people, based on insufficient or incorrect information about the group to whom it is directed. Prejudice is towards an identifiable group or an identifiable member of a group, not towards an isolated individual

(Oxford-Psychology. Chapter14, 2013). The term “stereotype”, coined in 1798 by the French printer Didot, originally referred to a printing process used to create reproductions (Ashmore &Del Boca, 1981).

Journalist Walter Lippman (1922) later likened stereotypes to “pictures in the head” or mental reproductions of reality, and from there, the term gradually come to mean generalizations or quite often, overgeneralizations about the members to a group. Discrimination is the action that expresses the attitude of prejudice. Prejudice is a form of anti- social behavior, and it is a cause for concern in all communities. It is present in most cultures, and has been evident throughout history. It causes stress and tension between groups, and harm to the victims. There are tricomponent model of attitude applied to prejudice. The first one is cognitive that categorize people, beliefs and about the people that are put into these categories especially stereotyping.

The next is affective, feelings that are either friendly or hostile towards a group of people. And last the behavioral that represents the behavior towards a group of people. For example, prejudice against elderly people (ageism) includes negative beliefs about elderly people (cognitive component), a strong feeling of dislike towards the elderly (affective component) and the action of discriminating against them (behavioral component). The most obvious examples of prejudice are based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual preference, physical or intellectual disability, or mental illness. Racism exists for many racial and ethnic groups For example; Blacks are significantly more likely to have their vehicles searched during traffic stops than whites, particularly when blacks are driving in predominately white neighborhoods. (Phenomenon often termed “DWB”, or “driving while black.”) (Rojek, Rosenfeld, & Decker, 2012) Mexican Americans and other Latino groups also are targets of racism from the police and other members of the community. For example, when purchasing item the Latino shoppers are asked to show formal identification (Dovidio et al., 2010).

Racism is prejudiced and discrimination against an individual based solely on one’s membership in a specific racial group (such as towards African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, European Americans). What are some stereotypes of various racial or ethnic groups? Research suggests that cultural stereotypes for Asian Americans include cold, sly, and unintelligent: for European Americans, cold and intelligent; and for African Americans, aggressive, athletic, and more likely to be law breakers (Devine & Elliot, 1995 et al., 2002).Prejudice and discrimination persist in society due to social learning and conformity to social norms. Children learn prejudiced attitudes and beliefs from society: their parents, teachers, friends, the media, and other sources of socialization, such as Facebook (O’ Keeffe & Clarke- Pearson, 2011). The purpose of the study is to know how people react or respond others based on their sexual preference.

METHODS

Participants:

The social experiment was conducted in Luneta Park, manila. Participants have a total of 10 (ten) and was randomly selected and informed what the social experiment is all about.

Materials:

Camera and cellular phone was used to record the video and also the clothes of a woman that were used to disguise.

Procedure:

The experimenter disguised and wears a woman’s dress; he also asked a certain location to the selected subject. After the social experiment the subject was informed and was told about their consent on the said experiment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1:

The Pie graph shows that 7 out of 10 participants helped the experimenter who dressed oppositely to his gender and action. The seven (7) people participated through helping and the remaining three (3) people who are chosen respondents did not help.

The result implies that prejudice has nothing to do or do not affect the person’s attitude toward an individual whose looking for help. It also says that the helping behavior of a person will always be dominant specially when the person whose in need directly asked for help to other people. Opposed to the idea of bystander effect that tackles about the helping behavior of a person that do not make any assistance because they think there are other people who will make or give the help that they need. People who were about to or on their way

people who helped70%

people who did not help 30%

Responds of the participants

to deliver a speech about helping others were likely to help than those delivering other sermons, showing that the thoughts of the individual were a factor in dictating helping behavior. In our first assumption, randomly selected participants were confused a lot in the physical appearance of the experimenter. According to the studies this concept can be related to the concept of conformity.

The idea of why some of the individuals acting so confused in appearance of the weird man came from the social norm that he or she came from, in adaptation of the believed things or normal set of behavior to their sights relating to their group or community. Therefore it is indeed true that there is a big possibilities that the norms that the individual that belong was the primary reason of these attitudes toward strangers.

But in constructing or finalizing the conclusion about this experiment there are some things that somehow undermines it such as the way how the respondents reacted accordingly or properly for they already have the idea that this is an experiment. One of the respondents stated that he knew that he must participate properly. One of the statements given was that the location chosen where this experiment was done was already chosen too by lots of experiments. One of the respondents has been always being subject by social experiments and it was not his first time to participate in these kinds of things. The idea of the participant may be include to the concept of participant bias. This issue affects the response of subjects especially in authenticity or realness of the response. Through the concept inside this discussion invades very least number of participant will still contribute in testing accuracy of information being gathered.

REFERENCES

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1946-03231-000

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1946-03231-000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i6oGuNRg

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wsu-sandbox/chapter/prejudice-and-discrimination/

www.tandfonline.com

www.science.jrank.org

http://dx.doi.org/

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN HELPING BEHAVIOUR

March 2018

Maria Carmie Yumang

Mary Ann A. Berania

Peter Paul Joaquin

Princess Gabad

Angela Vista

Harold Dave Navea

ABSTRACT

Altruism involves the unselfish concern for other people. It involves doing things simply out of a desire to help, not because you feel obligated to out of duty, loyalty, or religious reasons benefits from the action. However, some research say that female are more likely and expectedly to help than male, maybe because majority of people are in patriarchal society wherein female are compassionate and emotional while men are altruistic when the price for helping is high or the person whom they help is attractive. After conducting the experiment, the result shows that a female subjects are more likely to help others than male subjects. Female subjects did not hesitate to help other people, they also did not base on the appearance of a person whom they help. While male subjects chose the people whom their going to help and generally looks on the appearance in deciding

whether to help them or not. So, the experiment conducted are similar to the some previous studies.

INTRODUCTION

Gender roles are cultural and personal. They determine how male and female should think, speak, dress, and interact within the context of society. Learning plays a role in this process of shaping gender roles. These gender schemas are deeply embedded cognitive frameworks regarding what defines masculine and feminine.

Altruism involves the unselfish concern for other people. It involves doing things simply out of a desire to help, not because you feel obligated to out of duty, loyalty, or religious reasons benefits from the action. Remember, however, that pure altruism involves true selflessness are humans intuitively altruistic, or does altruism require self-control. A theory of social heuristics, whereby intuitive responses favor typically successful behaviors, suggests that the answer may depend on who people are. In particular, evidence suggests that women are expected to behave altruistically, and are punished for failing to be altruistic, to a much greater extent than men.

There are many factors that draw individuals in to help. One of these is the attractiveness of the person in need of help (Benson, Karabenick & Lerner, 1976). It is sometimes a characteristic of our personality; if individuals have a more altruistic or helpful personality they may be more prone to participate in a myriad of helping situations (Eisenberg, Guthrie, Murphy, Shepard, Cumberland, & Carlo, 1999), if the person in need of help is of the 4 same sex of helper (Salminen, & Glad, 2001), or if the person helping is in a positive mood (Isen, 1999). Men may help women more because of living their masculine gender roles of being chivalrous or heroic, whereas women may choose to help not because of the person in need of help but the type of help needed; for example, long term care of a loved one or an emotional type of help (Eagly & Crowley, 1986).

A central question in the study of altruism has been whether there is a systematic gender difference in giving behaviour. Most experimental economics research has found that women are more generous than men. Evidence also suggests that gender differences depend upon the price of giving: males are more altruistic when the price of giving is low, while females are more altruistic when the price of giving is high. However, in the modified dictator game, a key variable in one’s decision to give is what one expects to receive. Systematic differences in those expectations may well contribute to systematic differences in altruistic behaviour.

Based on a study conducted by Clay, Z., Ravaux, L., de Waal, & Zuberbühler, K (2016) stated that social expectations for behaviors that cannot be easily and objectively quantified as good or bad can be more complex. For instance, altruism (unilaterally giving resources to others) is a nice thing to do, but comes at a cost to the giver, who loses a resource without any obvious gain.

In this case, because of gender stereotypes about social roles, women are expected to behave altruistically, whereas men are not. Interestingly, these gender differences in social expectations about altruism influence altruistic behavior in a task in which participants decide how to divide actual money between themselves and an anonymous recipient.

On a meta-analysis of 22 datasets, they found that manipulations that promote acting based on intuition caused women, but not men, to give more money to the anonymous recipient. Furthermore, altruistic behavior was modulated by sex role identification, such that allowing participants to deliberate reduced altruistic tendencies in women who identified as more masculine but not those who identified as more feminine; sex role identification did not modulate behavior in men.

These results suggest that altruism is only the default behavior in women because of social expectations: women are stereotypically expected to be communal and self-sacrificing, and so failing to behave in this manner has negative consequences for women, but not men.

And based on a brief report entitled Social Heuristics and Social Roles: Intuition Favors Altruism for Women but Not for Men ( Rand, D.

G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A. C., Capraro, V., & Barcelo, H. ) wherein their recent work has found that women are well aware of these gender stereotype-based behavioral prescriptions, and their concern over encountering backlash effects from violating these stereotypes helps explain, in part, a range of behaviors that systematically vary by gender (Brescoll, 2011). As a result,behaving altruistically in accordance with others’ expectations is typically advantageous for women. Second, the fact that women disproportionately occupy roles that either mandate self-sacrificing and altruistic behavior (e.g., mother) or, at the very least, require a great deal of other-oriented, communal behavior (e.g., nurse; Eagly, 1987), may cause women to habituate to being altruistic. And even women who do not explicitly occupy such family or work roles may acquire altruistic intuitive social responses because female peer groups are markedly more communal and egalitarian than male peer groups, and thus make self-sacrificing, unselfish behavior socially adaptive (Maccoby, 1998). Taken together, consideration of both the expectations of others and the behaviors one engages in regularly point to intuition favoring altruism for women more so than men. In their paper, they experimentally investigated the role of intuition and deliberation in altruism, and the potential moderating role of gender. In their first Study , a meta-analysis of 22 giving studies where cognitive processing was manipulated revealed the predicted interaction between cognitive processing mode and gender: promoting intuition increased altruism in women but had no significant effect in men.

Situation does have a lot to do with whether a person will help another. For example an individual comes upon a situation in which they see a single female with car trouble. Normally this situation seems harmless, but change the woman’s race, change the area the car is stalled in, add a passenger, add children or simply change her gender to a male with car trouble, the outcomes also changes. Several little factors come together into a situation that may deter or increase your chance of helping.

METHODS

Participants

The experiment required ten (10) participants, 5 boys and 5 girls who were randomly selected by the experimenter at the Quezon City Memorial Circle Public Park.

Materials

Video cam recorder and coins we used to show people how much money we have left

Procedure

The experimenters divided their group into two and then dispersed into different places. They then selected their subjects at random, each groups were assigned to look for specific genders as for their subject, 5 male and 5 female .They then tried to ask each subject for a spare change and see whether if they would give some in accordance to the gender of the experimenter. After the experiment , another group which are assigned to interview the subject comes in and ask questions related to the experiment and the money of those subjects who gave spare change were then returned and then thanked them for their participation and kindness.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The graph shows that 7 out of 10 of the participants chose to help the experimenters who were a girl and a lesbian and 3 out 10 of the participants chose not to help one of the experimenter who was a boy. This result shows how biased the participants when it comes to gender.

REFERENCES

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-xge0000154.pdf

http://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/peeps/issue-67.aspx

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/60342/Gender_Roles_and_Helping_Behavior.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/peeps/issue-67.aspx

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~ulrike/Papers/GenderGenerosityAERPP2013v9.pdf

Participants who didn't helped Partcipants who helped0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Respond of the participants

How the Physical Characteristics Change our judgement

March 2018

Lorelyn Lintag,Nicca Mae Aco,

Frida Mae Caranto,Marjo Ordoñez, and

Cristina Lunibo

INTRODUCTION

Physical characteristic studies have shown that at a very early age, children began to pick whom they would like for playmates by such standards as facial attractiveness and body form (fisher, 1986) and another study found that across several age group subjects consistently ranked people based on attractiveness with similar results (Elis and young, 1989) and it implies that poor physical appearance leads to covered opinion by others. Although people urged “don’t judge a book by it’s cover”(Yester fuller, 1946) the impact of faces are shown in people’s impressions, as well as their behavior toward them, eg,. Whom they help. Social Perception involves the development of an attitude towards another person or group of people.

ABSTRACT

Physical characteristics are the features about people’s body and the first thing that they see when they look at someone could be their hair, clothes, nose or figure, build, height, complexion characteristics. the impact of faces are shown in people’s impressions, as well as their behavior toward them, eg,. Whom they help. Social Perception involves the development of an attitude towards another person or group of people.

BODY OF REPORT

Physical characteristics are the features about people’s body and the first thing that they see when they look at someone could be their hair, clothes, nose or figure, build, height, complexion characteristics.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The aim of this experiment is to prove that the physical characteristics have a big impact on how people give an opinion of judgment to others. In addition, selection of clothes and being hygienic, those play a big role in people’s relationship. Appearance or physical characteristic matters, because some special qualities are so useful in guiding adaptive behavior that can create an impression.

METHODSPARTICIPANTS

4 participants completed all conditions of the experimenter. 2 were female and 2 were male. The ages were mixed. Participants were all passersby in Pureza St. Sampaloc, Manila who saw the help-seeker experimenters and they stopped to help.

APPARATUS/MATERIALS

Considered ordinary appearance or well-dressed to see if the passersby will believe to the experimenter’s requests. As follows:

“Kuya/Ate pwede po bang makahingi ng kahit magkano lang, nawala po kasi yung wallet ko at cellphone. Sa San Mateo pa po kasi ako umuuwi.”

All the experiment was recorded.

When the two experimenters walked individually in the field setting the passers-by participants and asked them for money, the experimenter told that they got lost and need money to be able to return. The entire scene was recorded.

Participants

1st odinary clothes2nd Well-dressed

RESULTS

The study shows that physical characteristics are a major factor depending on people first impression in observing. It is necessary to examine what characteristics people possess that could possibly have an effect on their judgements. Using the experimenters who played a role as a person who is in need or money to go home and wearing simple clothes (experimenter A) and the other one who’s playing the same role but wearing well clothes and a phone with her hand (experimenter B). There are two

targets which is a boy and girl. They asked the participant to lend them little money for them to go home. As a result, the experimenter A gets sympathy and help unlike the experimenter B who did not get any help.

As shown in our experiment people also act on these judgements. When the participant saw the experimenter A they thought that person really needs help, the participants easily believed that she badly need money, they showed sympathy and help instead of doubting. When it comes to the experimenter B the participants did not easily believed on her.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATED PURPOSE AND RESULT

A looks really matter and people’s characteristic is being observed when making a social judgement. It is not supposed to judge by it’s appearance, but that doesn’t stop us from judging another by their looks.

It shows that the purpose of the study is related to the result which concluded that most people can easily judging others without knowing them personally. Just by guessing based on the person’s body language, voice, clothing and appearance.

Trust vs. Mistrust

March 2018

Bondoc, Arjelica

Blasco, MarielLA

Cruz, Mary Irish GianNE

Lamit, RheA

Omela, Nicole Ann

ABSTRACT

In this experiment, the target of the experimenters was male and female according to their statuses. While conducting the social experiment, the experimenters had 5 trials before they received help from the participants. The 2 participants who have sympathy and soft-hearted, were the man and woman, the first participant has PHP 140 only but she chose to give her PHP 100 to the experimenter. The old

man gave his money also to the experimenter because according to him he just wants to help the experimenter.

In this day, trust is not easy to get to other people. In this experiment that experimenters don’t think if the reason of the participant is reasonable or not, but still at the end of their mindset is they just want to help. The experimenter came up to the realization that even though there are many bad things that happen in the society, there are people whose doing good to other.

INTRODUCTION

Trust is both emotional and logical act. Emotionally, it is where you expose your vulnerabilities to people, but believing they will not take advantage of your openness. Logically, it is where you have assessed the probabilities of gain and loss, calculating expected utility based on hard performance data, and concluded that the person in question will behave in a predictable manner. In practice, trust is a bit of both. Emotions associated with trust included companionship, friendship, love, agreement, relaxation, and comfort. According to (Karmer & Tyler, et al, 1996) trust in strangers has attracted increasing attention in sociology, psychology, and related disciplines. Trust is important because it forms a relationship with people and depending on the term for love, advice, and help. One of the most important decisions that an individual make in life is deciding who to trust. Trusting the wrong person can result in abusive relationships, date rape, being taken advantage of, financial losses, and much more. Researcher’s judgments about trustworthiness are so rapid that they are able to make them even before they know who the person is. Trust crisis is defined as a number of significant changes in a person’s attitude to objects of the world, associated with a loss of aprioristic reliability and safety of these objects. There are three types of trust crisis, based on the trust relationships system of personality: Social trust crisis, Interpersonal trust crisis, Crisis of trust to the environment.

The helping behavior is a concept in social psychology which believes that a person voluntarily gives assistance to others, without regard as to whether a reward is expected in return or not. Social psychologists study the circumstances in which people offer help to others. Altruism is the idea of helping others without expecting anything in return. Empathy, on the other hand, is the ability of a person to place oneself in another’s shoes to understand what the other is feeling. This theory combines the idea of both – when one feels empathic towards another, he feels the need to help and relieve them of their suffering. This theory revolves around ‘empathic concern,’ which are emotions felt by a person when he sees somebody in need. The person’s priority now centers around the other person’s needs and relieving them, instead of focusing on his own. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters © 2017.)

The research showed that men and women tended to evaluate their trust relationship to the world and people around them a stable, and in the manifestation of trust to society there were significant differences between men and women based on different levels of their loyalty to the society. According to the study of (Udry Richard, 1994), trusting others is what people think they should do, and emotions such as anxiety or guilt associated with not fulfilling a social duty or responsibility may account for much of the excessive trust observed between strangers every day. Rlling and Sanfey (et al, 2011), stated that the key to cooperative is trust. It is the willingness to take the risk of helping another person despite the possibility of no reciprocation that enables us to overcome the fear of being exploited and work together. The absence of trust, on the other hand, renders us reluctant t engage in reciprocal exchanges in the first place, thereby leading us to forego the potential benefits of cooperation by. Despite the classic game the theoretical that the subgame – Perfect Nash equilibrium is not to trust a partner, trust is ubiquitous in society and a vast number of empirical investigations shows that humans consistently display trust and therefore engage in cooperative reciprocal with unknown partners by (Camerer,2003; McCabe and Smith, 2000; Rand et al, 2012)

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

The social experiment consisted of six (6) random individuals. This includes five (5) females and one (1) male.

APPARATUS/ MATERIALS Camera was used

Procedure

1. One of the experimenter was assigned to act or pretend that she lost her money or was stolen.

2. The setting of the experiment was conducted near in the sidewalk or street.

3. The other members are in charge in taking a video while conducting the experiment.

4. After the experiment, the person who showed kindness to the experimenter after the act, they received a form that it was all about experiment.

5. The experimenter asks if the recorded video can be used for the school purposes of the students.

Participants Results1 Ignored2 Ignored3 Ignored4 Ignored5 Kind6 Kind

RESULTS

The table showed that two out of six participants helped the experimenter who acts in the experiment. One (1) male and female showed kindness when the experimenters conducting an experiment. The results indicate that people not to tend to trust strangers based on their status.

DISCUSSION

American social and moral philosopher, Eric Hoffer, once said: “Someone who thinks the world is always cheating him is right. He is missing that wonderful feeling of trust in someone or something.” This experiment focuses on the trust and the mistrust of people in the society. Trust is the act of placing confidence in someone or something else – is a fundamental human experience. It’s necessary for the society to function and to any person to be relatively happy. Mistrust is several intensely dramatic and stormy relationships in a row or at once, racing thought of suspicion or anxiety about friends and family and believe that others are deceptive and malevolent, without real evidence.

The experimenter’s attempted to do a social experiment regarding the trust and the mistrust of people nowadays. Every member has their own responsibilities, the idea was two of the group members assigned to act or to pretend that they lost their money or was stolen. Out of 6 participants, 4 participants said that they don’t have money and think that it was just a scam. The two remaining participants show their kindness to the experimenter. The first participant (Female) after knowing what happened to the experimenter, she gave money cost 100. Second participant (Male) asked them where they lived, the money left in his pocket is P19 only but instead of keeping it he gave it to the experimenter just to help them in small money. The participants who show their sympathy to experimenters after the act, they received the form to inform there that it’s a social experiment.

Catching the trust of people in this age is not easy. The modern generation is very aware on what’s going on the society. Trust is not an either/or proposition, but a matter of degree and certain life experiences that can impact a person’s life to trust others. In fact, every day people make choices about whom and how to trust and sometimes people are willing to trust the person who has done wrong to his/her, a total lack of mistrust is a serious psychological problem. Judgment is about when and whom to trust.

REFERENCES

The Psychology Notes Headquarters © 2017. Camerer,2003; McCabe and Smith, 2000; Rand et al, 2012

FORMATION OF WORD ASSOCIATION AND PERCEPTUAL DEFENSE

March 2018

Cyndy G. Dela RamaReynaldo P. Hernandez

Rasco M. PandaanJoshua M. Puriza

ABSTRACT

The formation of word association and perceptual defense aim to measure signs of emotional complexes and to be able to identify the degree of threshold for each selected stimulus. The apparatus needed were paper, pencil and twenty (10) stimulus words. For the procedure, the experiment has 1 phase: determination of association reaction time and the measurement of recognition thresholds. Ten carefully

chosen words were presented one at a time. The experiment concludes that there were different signs of emotional complexes and different degree of threshold for each selected stimulus words. Because the subject had difficulty in reacting to certain stimulus word, the subject felt unpleasant with the stimulus words so the individual laugh. Scale defined these groups as, respectively, repressors, neutrals and sensitizers If so, perceptual defense and perceptual vigilance should be, respectively, functions of repression and sensitization. a growing body of evidence that indices of maladjustment Increase directly No such relationship was found in the present study, which defined as most threatening those stimuli producing the longest associative reaction times on a word-association test Perceptual defense was defined as an increase (and perceptual vigilance as an increase then a decrease) in visual recognition threshold as threat increased, assumes that his scale classifies Individuals along a pervasive repression- sensitization continuum, defined at one end by avoiding defenses, and at the other by approaching defenses. When associative variables were held constant across groups and analysis' restricted to sexual taboo words, sensitizes obtained significantly higher thresholds than the two groups did. The formation of word association and perceptual defense aim to measure signs of emotional complexes and to be able to identify the degree of threshold for each selected stimulus. The materials used were paper, pencil, timer and stimulus words. It was also observed that the subject had difficulty in reacting to certain stimulus word, the subject felt unpleasant with the given stimulus words so the individual laugh and feel uncomfortable.

INTRODUCTION Perceptual defense not only do absolute threshold vary from person to person; they also vary from time for a single person. The type of stimulus, the state of one’s nervous system, and the cost of false “detections” all make a difference. Emotional factors are also

important. Unpleasant stimuli, for example, may raise the threshold for recognition. This effect is called perceptual defense. “Dirty” words took longer to recognize when flashed on a screen that did “clean” words. Apparently, it is possible to process information on more than one level and to resist information that causes anxiety, discomfort, or embarrassment ( Dember & Warm,)Term use to refer to the fact that the perception of some stimuli requires a longer exposure than perception of other stimuli. In other words, the thresholds for recognition of certain stimuli are higher than the thresholds of recognition for other stimuli. Perceptual defense refers to the hypothesis that may be possible for an individual not to perceive some events which are psychologically unpleasant .Perceptual defense occurs when a person is value orientations act as a barrier to stimuli that are threatening. That is, some decision mechanism, influenced by memory storage, must first classify stimuli as important or dangerous before perceptual vigilance or perceptual defense can occur. perhaps at one non-conscious perceptual level a stimulus is perceived, interpreted, and classified as dangerous. In the basis of this classification the stimulus is not permitted into the perceptual level that involves consciousness, so that the person has no subjective experience of ever having perceived the stimulus at all. Word association reaction time and GSR are used to separate five letter words of known familiarity into four groups; words associated with either avoidance habits or disruptive emotional states, unfamiliar words, moderately familiar words connected with nondestructive emotional states, and familiar and non-emotional words.

METHODS

Objective To be able to measure the signs of their emotional complexes by using the disruptive words and how will the respondents react to the stimulus being presented by the experimenter and determine if the respondents will recall easily the disruptive words compared to the usual and tricky words, measure the intelligence quotient of the respondents in forming words which are associated with one another.

Participants Researchers find five (5) respondents to be the subject of the experiment.

Materials The researcher used flash cards and marker to show the twenty words that will be the variable in conducting the experiment. While doing that, the researcher used stop watch to determine how fast or slow the respondents in recalling the words that are being shown to them. Lastly, there was a camera which is intended for documentation.

Procedures1.First we ready the materials needed after that we ask the participants to look at the 10 words that we are going to show and give the five words they are remembered.

2.researchers presents each picture for 5 seconds

3.Observe the following, Description of the words presented; The Method of recalling the words;

4.Tabulate individual response.

RESULTSTable 1 : Shows the Responses of Male Students

Word Stimulus Respondents

Abnonrmal 3

Lesbian 2

Monster 1

Nipple 3

Pa-fall 3

Pusongbato 3

Jelous 0

Sex 3

Shadow 0

Tender 2

Utot 3

As Shown in the table 1 the highest and lowest ranks, The most answered is the word “Abnormal, Nipple, Pa-fall, Pusong-Bato, Sex and Utot” while the Lowest is the word “Shadow.”

DISCUSSION

The formation of word association has a big impact on the perceptual defense of the respondents. Sometimes they block the word association that might be concluded that some of the respondents follow the rules while the other respondents pick the words they are going to utter. .

CONCLUSION

This study proposed to investigate the influence of personality styles and the effects of stimulus emotiveness upon cognitive processes in continuous free association and recall tasks. 5 College students who served as subjects were classified according to their Stimulus material contained 25 common words, 10 of which were emotionally toned, and 15 of a neutral quality. A continuous word association procedure was utilized in the first of two tasks and was followed by a free recall task. All subjects were exposed to the same conditions as a group and wrote their responses in booklets with which they were provided. These responses were scored for the following measures: personality styles and for the influence upon performance of emotionally-laden stimulus material. The findings indicated that personality was of non-significant influence upon differential performance on the association and recall tasks. Although the control group was more fluent than both of the other groups across all measures, this difference approached statistical significance only for the number of subjective associations. This trend was considered as a tendency for the non-neurotic group to the more fluent in their response to emotional stimulation than either of the other groups. The effects of emotional stimulation upon all measures were highly significant. The number of word associations decreased when the stimulus words were of an emotional nature. Associative productivity was decreased for all groups as a function of the emotional quality of the stimulus words. The number of subjective responses was increased for all groups by this effect. Recall, too, was affected at a highly significant level by emotional stimulation, with a notable increase in forgetting emotional words relative to neutral words. Specific differences in the degree of these effects according to personality group were also discussed, and future research was suggested in order to test certain tentative conclusions regarding individual differences in cognitive control.

REFERENCESGronnerud, P., & McDonald, P (2011). Research with the Locus of Control Construct (2nd Edition) Rex Bookstore INC.

http://www.academia.edu/28080883/TITLE_FORMATION_OF_WORD_ASSOCIATION_AND_PERCEPTUAL_DEFENS Retrieved on March 23, 2018

AGGRESSION ON CHILDREN

March 2018

Delfino, MelissaImperio, Andrea

Quimayquimay, ReySibayan, Jericho

ABSTRACT

It is about the aggression on children being influenced by different factors behaviour of an adult and the role of media in shaping in the behaviour of children. The objective of this research are to be able to know if they will still help people who are in need whether the person is busy or not and to determine the people who are in rush have been not having a will to help or they are not showing the ability to help the procedure are the experimenter find a child to be a subject of experiment. Then the balloon was used as an aggression stimulus being punch by the experimenter. Lastly, the experimenter will observe if the participant will imitate the behaviour of the experimenter and it is conclude that aggression on children is very common nowadays because of the different factors that influence the behaviour of a child. The media psychology plays a significant role in

building the behaviour and cognition of how the children interpret the world.

BODY OF REPORT

BACKGROUNDOF STUDYAggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the

intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual. It may occur either in retaliation or without provocation. In humans, frustration due to blocked goals can cause aggression. Human aggression can be classified into direct and indirect aggression, whilst the first is characterized by physical or verbal behaviour intended to harm social relation of an individual or a group. In definition commonly used in the social sciences and behavioural sciences, aggression is a response by an individual that delivers something unpleasant to another person. Some definitions include that the individual mas intend to harm another person. Predatory or defensive behaviour between members of different species may not be considered aggression in the same sense.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe aim of this experiment is to be able to know if they will still

help people who are in need whether the person is busy or not. People who are in rush have been observed on having a will to help or they are not showing the ability to help. To know through this, people who saw the action were able to offer help. Lastly, to explore the causes of not showing helping behaviour.

METHODSPARTICIPANTSExperimenter find children to be the subject of Aggression on Children experiment.

MATERIALSThe balloon used as the stimulus to determine the aggressiveness of the child sand the camera used to determine the aggressiveness of the child.

PROCEDURE1. The experimenter finds a child to be the subject of experiment.2. Then the balloon was used as an aggression stimulus being

punched by the experimenter.3. The experimenter will observe if the participant will imitate the

behaviour of the experimenter.

RESULTS TABLE 1

Number of Children Imitated the Behaviouryes No

1

2

3

As Shown in table 1, all the participants were able to imitate the aggressive behaviour being modelled by the experimenter.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATED PURPOSE AND RESULT

Based on the results above on aggressiveness of a child was really strong. All of them have accept the experiment even though they did not know that they’ve are in the experiment challenge.

It shows that the purpose of the study is related which included that the children has an aggressive action on the situation that they see into the other person/people.

IV. REFERENCESBooksAggie Carson-Arenas, Ph.D(2010) introduction to Psychology Understanding Human Development (2nd Edition) Rex Bookstore INC.Ma. Shirley Calabio- Trajeco Ph.D (2013) Psychology in Perspective: Theories and application (3rd Edition) AMMS Publication. Tandang Sora quezon City