The Effects of Emotions caused by Video Priming on Altruism among randomly selected Far Eastern University students
Kristine Bernadette Batusbatusan
John Rovic Guides
Christine Joie Macauba
Maria Carmela Orfanel
Far Eastern University

Abstract

This study focuses on the effects of emotions caused by video priming on altruism. The experimenters want to know if there is a significant effect between emotions and altruism. Some related articles were gathered and one study by Over H. and Carpenter M. (2009-10) showed that priming by photographs evoking affiliations actually increase altruism for toddlers. The experimenters want to prove the same for emotions but this time, taking into account funny and annoying videos to prime necessary emotions. Subjects were randomly selected and divided into two experimental groups. A group watched a funny video individually and the other group watched an annoying video individually. The experimenter then accidentally dropped a cup filled with marbles after the subject finished watching and observed whether the subject will help or not. A Helping Attitude Scale test was given afterwards. Results were obtained and suggested that emotions caused by video priming has nosignificant effect on the level of altruism of an individual. Explanations for this was gathered and it came out that the subjects, regardless of the videos, did what they felt to do whether to help the experimenter or not. The emotions they felt after watching the video did not in any way contribute to their actions during the experiment.

The Effects of Emotions by Video Priming on Altruism among randomly selected Far Eastern University students

The experimenters want to figure out if emotions caused by video priming will have an effect on the altruistic behavior of an individual. Specifically, the experimenters want to know if exposing an individual to a funny video will produce higher rates of altruistic behaviour compared to subjects being exposed to an annoying video.
A study by Over H. and Carpenter M. (2009-10) on priming altruism on toddlers showed that "Eighteen-month-old infants helped a person in need more often, and more spontaneously, when primed with photographs evoking affiliation than when primed with photographs evoking individuality." This means to say that toddlers primed by photographs evoking affiliation are more likely to show altruistic behaviour.
According to Dean Mcdonnell (2010), “A study by Isen, Daubman and Nowicki (1987) found that if a person is in a good (positive) mood, they are more likely to help others. However, people are less likely to help when in a good mood if they think that by helping they may spoil that good mood.” The experimenters expect that funny videos exposed to individuals will increase the probability of them doing altruistic actions compared to individuals exposed to annoying videos. This is so because the experimenters perceive that exposing subjects to funny videos will produce a good emotion compared to that of the annoying videos. With this hypothesis, the experimenters are going to perform a Two-Independent-Groups design. Two experimental groups will be exposed to two treatments, a funny video and an annoying video.

Literature Review
According to Caitlin Costello (2001), “Human altruism is much more nuanced than simply risking one's life for another, and cannot be accounted for by a simple application of Hamilton's rule. Many self-sacrificial acts that people perform for each other do not involve a direct risk to their life, and may also involve some benefit to the actor. Additionally, if the recipient of the act is not a relative, Hamilton's rule does not apply. In fact, there is some question as to whether human altruism actually exists, or whether what we think of as altruism is actually just "enlightened self-interest". Many allow for altruistic acts to include benefits to the actor as long as they are the result of behaviour by the recipient of the altruistic act, or others, and as long as the actor has no control over receiving these benefits (6). Others argue that all supposed altruism is really motivated by the benefits to the person performing the act. These include material gains, such as a tax deduction for a charitable contribution, a rise in self-esteem for having done something good, and a sense of security that sometime the favour will be returned by the recipient. Although not everyone agrees that altruism can be completely pure, the definitions of altruism accepted by those interested in studying it seem to allow for benefit to the donor, as long as the act of self-sacrifice performed for someone else, with benefit to the actor not being a significant motivation.”
An article by Dean Mcdonnell (2010) notes that, “There are several factors that may affect the way in which a person behaves altruistically. A study by Isen, Daubman and Nowicki (1987) found that if a person is in a good (positive) mood, they are more likely to help others. However, people are less likely to help when in a good mood if they think that by helping they may spoil that good mood. This would suggest that altruism if considered to be like a scale could be manipulated by both internal and external factors. In addition to several factors that may contribute to altruistic behaviours, a study by Rushton (1984) suggested that parental models and other forms of social support are essential factors in the development of altruistic behaviour.”
Sadie F. Dingfelder (2006) stated that, “Many studies have shown that while people do help strangers, they are more likely to give money to relatives. Additionally, adopted children, on average, get a smaller share of inheritances than biological children, according to an analysis of 1,538 California estates, published in a 1992 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology (Vol. 13, No. 5, pages 495-522).”
An article by Tom Oswald, Danielle Whittaker and Jeff Clune (2010) on altruism gene states that, “Another possibility was that organisms may choose to help only individuals who carry specific markers to indicate the presence of an “altruism gene.” The mechanism, described as a “greenbeard gene,” involves a conspicuous marker, such as a green beard, which indicates the presence of the altruist gene. It was theorized that in such a system all organisms with green beards would recognize and be altruistic toward each other.”
Johannes Schwarze and Rainer Winkelmann (2005) argued that, “We consider altruism in the context of a family, specifically between parents and adult children who have left home. The choice of altruism between parents and adult children who no longer live at home has both theoretical and practical advantages. A theoretical reason for this focus is that it ties in nicely with the literature on economic linkages in the extended family (for example Altonji et al, 1992). Defining the family properly has important consequences for the efficacy of family and tax policies. A practical reason is that only adult children (or at least those aged 17 or above) respond to the happiness question. Moreover, only for children living in a separate household is the independent information on consumption proxies available, which is required for an instrumental variable estimation, as detailed below. Although the focus here is on parents and adult children most of the methods discussed in this section are more general, and could be equally applied to other within-family (e.g. altruism between parents and children living at home or between spouses) or not-within family pairings (friends, colleagues, unrelated persons).”

An article by Scott Huettel, Ph.D. (2007) focused on relations of altruism and the brain. It stated that, “The researchers scanned the participants' brains using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which uses harmless magnetic pulses to measure changes in oxygen levels that indicate nerve cell activity. The scans revealed that a region of the brain called the posterior superior temporal sulcus was activated to a greater degree when people perceived an action -- that is, when they watched the computer play the game -- than when they acted themselves, Tankersley said. This region, which lies in the top and back portion of the brain, is generally activated when the mind is trying to figure out social relationships. The researchers then characterized the participants as more or less altruistic, based on their responses to questions about how often they engaged in different helping behaviors, and compared the participants' brain scans with their estimated level of altruistic behavior. The fMRI scans showed that increased activity in the posterior superior temporal sulcus strongly predicted a person's likelihood for altruistic behavior.”
A study by Matt Russell Julie Bayer (1998), “However, now that we have learned a number of different perspectives, we have a much better feel about all the dynamics that could make up altruistic behaviour. We feel very confident to state that our initial hypothesis of whether human altruism was cultural or genetic, was the same that we came to after our research was completed and we tallied our surveys. A combination of both factors (culture and gene make up) seems to be the most reasonable conclusion.”
According to Elizabeth Scott, M.S. (2011), “Studies show that altruism is good for your emotional well-being, and can measurably enhance your peace of mind. For example, one study found that dialysis patients, transplant patients and family members who became support volunteers for other patients experienced increased personal growth and emotional well-being. Another study on patients with multiple sclerosis showed that those who offered other MS patients peer support actually experienced greater benefits than their supported peers, including more pronounced improvement on confidence, self-awareness, self-esteem, depression and daily functioning. Those who offered support generally found that their lives were dramatically changed for the better.”
David Freeman (2012) stated that, “MRI scans showed key differences between the brains of participants who were altruistic and those who were selfish. "People who behaved more altruistically also had a higher proportion of gray matter at the junction between the parietal and temporal lobes," researcher Dr. Yosuke Morishima, a postdoctoral researcher in the department, said in the statement.”

Method
I – Participants: The subjects of the study were randomly selected students of Far Eastern University.
II – Apparatus and materials:
Two Laptop computers were used for viewing and sound production purposes. The experimenters downloaded two kinds of videos: A funny video and an annoying video through the use of Youtube downloader software. An annoying whistle sound was also downloaded from the internet. Windows Media Player was used for quality video and sound playback. A Standardized test entitled Helping Attitude Scale test by Gary S. Nickell (1998) was also downloaded from the internet for the administration of tests for the subjects to measure their altruism. The test includes correlations between HAS scores and other measures and its reliability is .86 on Cronbach’s Alpha and .85 on Test-retest reliability. Pencils were also provided by the experimenters for answering purposes. A cup was also needed for storage of the ten marbles that will be used for the commotion inside the experiment room.
III – Procedure:
This study incorporates a Two-Independent-Groups Design, specifically a Two-Experimental-Groups Design. The subjects were randomly assigned through Fish Bowl Technique. They were asked to pick a piece of paper with either an F or an A enlisted. A subject who picked an F goes to the Funny video while an A goes to the Annoying video.
The independent variable in this study is the emotions caused by the videos used for priming the subjects while the dependent variable is their altruistic behavior.
No subjects are allowed to broadcast the events inside the experiment room after the experiment.
Each subject was asked to enter the room one-by-one. The room should only be accommodated by the experimenter and the subject. The subject was asked to watch a 2 minute video according to their experimental group. The experimental group who got an F during the draw got to watch a funny video. After the subject finished watching the funny video, the experimenter accidentally dropped the cup filled with marbles on purpose and observed whether the subject is going to aid in picking up the fallen marbles. The experimenter gave the subject a Helping Attitude Scale test afterwards. This test was mainly to see the consistency of the subject’s altruism in action and on paper. The same scenario was repeated on the experimental group who got an A. However, they watched an annoying video instead. In addition, an accomplice hidden within the room produced an annoying whistle sound. This would add the annoyance evoked by watching the video. The experimenter then accidentally dropped the cup filled with marbles on purpose and observed if the subject will help in picking them up. Right after, a Helping Attitude Scale test was administered to the subject. As soon as a subject was done, they were briefed about the scenarios that happened inside the experiment room. They also received a token for being a subject for the experiment.

Results
The experimenters want to know if priming the emotions of an individual by a funny and an annoying video will have an effect on their altruistic behaviour. Two kinds of videos were shown to two different experimental groups and their behavior was observed after watching the video. The results showed that majority of the subjects presented with the annoying video helped the experimenter in picking up the marbles. Six out of twenty subjects ignored the dropped marbles and proceeded to answer the Helping Attitude Scale test. On the other hand, half of the twenty subjects in the annoying video aided the experimenter in picking up the fallen marbles and half of those subjects did not help in picking up the marbles. An illustration of the number of subjects who helped and ignored the experimenter is shown on Table 1 (see Appendices). The data collected during the experiment was measured using Chi-square. The statistics showed that the study was not significant (see Appendices). The null hypothesis was retained.
Regarding the Helping Attitude Scale test given to the subjects, their scores averaged to 77.725. Table 2 illustrates the different scores garnered by the subjects (see Appendices). Every one of the subjects scored high on the administered test. The results of the subjects on the administered test were paired with their behavior during the experiment. Even the subjects who did not help in gathering the marbles during the experiment scored above average on the test.

Discussion
The results of the experiment turned out to be opposite of the expected outcome of the experimenters. Subjects exposed to funny videos were divided in terms of behavior. Half of them helped the experimenter while half ignored the dropped marbles and proceeded to answer the test. On the other hand, the subjects exposed to the annoying video resulted on fourteen of them showing altruistic behavior and the remaining six ignored the experimenter. The experimenters expected that majority of the subjects of the funny video will show more altruism and majority of the subjects of the annoying video will help the experimenter less in picking the fallen marbles. This is true with the study conducted by Over H. and Carpenter M. (2009-10) who conducted a similar experiment on toddlers. Explanations for the subjects of the experiment were gathered after the experiment. Majority of the subjects of the two experimental groups stated that the videos did not in any way contribute on their urge to help the experimenter when the marbles fell. They helped the experimenter because they wanted to help. Similarly, those who did not help stated that they felt lazy to help or didn’t feel the need to help regardless of the video they watched. This is supported by the obtained value on the Chi-square which resulted in the experimenters retaining the null hypothesis because the study was not significant. Priming the emotions with a funny or annoying video has no effect on the level of altruism of an individual. But take note that although the study was not significant, it was discovered that most people are born altruistic regardless of their present emotions because majority of the total subjects aided the experimenter in picking up the marbles.
In addition to the results found in the experiment, the scores garnered on the Helping Attitude Scale test are not synonymous to the behaviour of the subjects who did not aid in picking up the dropped marbles. The results of those subjects showed above average altruism, similar to the results of those who helped in picking up the dropped marbles. This opens up possibilities of the differences in altruism in action and on paper. Maybe people tend to answer tests on altruism based on the socially accepted behavior when it comes to helping others, but differs when presented with an actual situation where altruism is needed. It can be assumed that altruism can be influenced by a lot of factors and not just emotions. This study was limited to focus only on priming because of the availability of instruments present during the experiment. The experimenters have no proper instruments to take into account the mood, gender, experiences, exposure and other factors that may affect the altruism of an individual, not to mention the time and setting of which the experiment was conducted. It is therefore recommended for future experimenters related to this study to gather more subjects to achieve better results. They should also take into account other factors like affiliation to measure an individual’s level of altruism more accurately. In addition, it would be better if future experimenters try different experimental designs like within-subjects design and factorial design which both seems plausible.

References
Dean Mcdonnell (2010). Studies into Human Altruism. Education and Science. Retrieved from http://deanmcdonnell.hubpages.com/hub/Altruism-dmd
Elizabeth Scott, M.S. (2011). Altruism Benefits Everyone--Here's How. Benefits of Altruism. Retrieved from http://stress.about.com/od/lowstresslifestyle/a/altruism.htm
Caitlin Costello (2001). Altruism: selfless or selfish. Retrieved from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Costello.html
Over H. and Carpenter M. (2009-10). Eighteen-month-old infants show increased helping following priming with affiliation. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19674388
Scott Huettel, Ph.D. (2007). Activation Of Brain Region Predicts Altruism. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070121162756.htm
Matt Russell Julie Bayer (1998). Final: A Look into Human Altruism. Retrieved from http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Final.ALookintoHumanAltru.html
Sadie F. Dingfelder (2006). Altruism: an accident of nature. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/altruism.aspx
Tom Oswald, Danielle Whittaker and Jeff Clune (2010). New MSU research sheds light on how we become altruistic. Retrieved from http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/new-msu-research-sheds-light-on-how-we-become-altruistic/
Johannes Schwarze and Rainer Winkelmann (2005). What Can Happiness Research Tell Us About Altruism. Evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1487.pdf
David Freeman (2012). Altruism, Brain Region Called Temporoparietal Junction Linked In University Of Zurich Study. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/altriusm-brain-temporoparietal-junction_n_1679766.html

Appendices
Manual Statistics
Table 1: | Funny Video | Annoying Video | Total | Helped | 10 | 14 | 24 | Ignored | 10 | 6 | 16 | Total | 20 | 20 | N=40 |

Null Hypothesis: Priming by a funny or an annoying video has no effect on altruism
Alternative Hypothesis: Priming by a funny or annoying video has an effect on altruism
Obtained value: 1.66
Critical Region: 3.84
Df = (c-1) (r-1) = (2-1) (2-1) = Df (1) (1) = 1
Technique: sum of rows x sum of columns Total N
Funny Video/Helped = 24 x 20 / 40 = 12
Annoying Video/Ignored = 24 x 20 / 40 = 12
Funny Video/Helped = 16 x 20 / 40 = 8
Annoying Video/Ignored = 16 x 20 / 40 = 8 | Funny Video | Annoying Video | Total | | Fo | Fe | Fo | Fe | | Helped | 10 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 24 | Ignored | 10 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 16 | | 20 | 20 | 40 |

Fo Fe (Fo - Fe) (Fo – Fe)2 (Fo – Fe)2/Fe
10 12 -2 4/12 0.33
14 12 2 4/12 0.33
10 8 2 4/8 0.5
6 8 -2 4/8 0.5 X2 = 1.66 < CR 3.84
X2 = 1.66, P > .05 (significant)
Decision: Retain the Null hypothesis
Interpretation: Priming by an annoying and funny video has no effect on altruism

SPSS Statistics:
NPAR TESTS /CHISQUARE=Treatment response /EXPECTED=EQUAL /MISSING ANALYSIS.

NPar Tests

Notes | Output Created | 15-MAY-2014 16:20:53 | Comments | | Input | Active Dataset | DataSet0 | | Filter | <none> | | Weight | <none> | | Split File | <none> | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 40 | Missing Value Handling | Definition of Missing | User-defined missing values are treated as missing. | | Cases Used | Statistics for each test are based on all cases with valid data for the variable(s) used in that test. | Syntax | NPAR TESTS /CHISQUARE=Treatment response /EXPECTED=EQUAL /MISSING ANALYSIS. | Resources | Processor Time | 00:00:00.00 | | Elapsed Time | 00:00:00.08 | | Number of Cases Alloweda | 157286 | a. Based on availability of workspace memory. |

[DataSet0]

Chi-Square Test

Frequencies

Treatment | | Observed N | Expected N | Residual | Funny | 20 | 20.0 | .0 | Annoying | 20 | 20.0 | .0 | Total | 40 | | |

response | | Observed N | Expected N | Residual | Helped | 24 | 20.0 | 4.0 | Ignored | 16 | 20.0 | -4.0 | Total | 40 | | |

Test Statistics | | Treatment | response | Chi-Square | .000a | 1.600a | df | 1 | 1 | Asymp. Sig. | 1.000 | .206 | a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 20.0. |