rushton1981the altruistic personality

Upload: sinziana-chitic

Post on 14-Apr-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    1/10

    Person. iml:l 'id. Dil') 'i Vol 2, pp. 293 to 302. 1981 0191-8 869/81/0 40293-1 0102.0 0/0Printed in Grea t Bri tain Al l r ights reserved Copyright 1) 1981 Perga mon Press Ltd

    T H E A L T R U I S T I C P E R S O N A L I T Y A N D T H ES E L F - R E P O R T A L T R U I S M S C A L E *

    J . P HIL IP P E RUS HT ON,~ f ROL AND D. CHRIS JOHN and G . CYNTHIA F E KKE NDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science,The Univers i ty of Western Ontar io, Canada

    (Received 16 M arch 1981; in revised for m 26 M arch 1981)

    Sum mary --Thi s pap er i s divided into two par t s. In the f irs t, the rank order s tabi l ity of individualdi fferences in a l t ruism across s i tuat ions i s exam ined an d i t i s found tha t sub stant ia l consis tencyoccurs when due regard is given to the principle of aggregation. In the second, a self-reportal t ruism scale , on which respondents ra te the f requency wi th which they have engaged in some 20specific behaviors, is found to predict such cri teria as peer-ratings of al truism, completing anorgan-donor card, and paper-and-penci l measures of prosoeial or ientat ion. These data suggestthere i s a broad-based t ra i t of a l truism.

    I N T R O D U C T I O NIn t h i s pape r we wi l l a t t empt t o demons t ra t e t ha t t he re i s more cons i s t ency to a l t ru i s t i cbehavior across s i tuat ions than might often be supposed, i .e . , that there i s a t ra i t ofa l t ru i sm- - ind eed one su f fi c ien t ly b ro ad to warran t t he concep t o f ' the a l t ru i s ti c pe rson -al i ty .' F i rs t , we review the l i tera ture on the cons is tency of a l t ru is t ic behavio r , and secondwe demons t ra t e t ha t i nd iv idua l d i f fe rences i n a lt ru i s t ic behav io r can be m easu re d d i rec tlyby a se l f-report a l t ru ism scale .

    T H E C O N S I S T E N C Y O F A L T R U I S T I C B E H A V I O RI f a su rvey were to be t aken o f re sea rche rs i n t he f ie ld o f a l tru i sm as t o whe the r t heybel ieved there was such an ent i ty as ' the a l t ru is t ic personal i ty , ' the majori ty wouldanswer wi th a re sound ing ' no . ' The re a re ve ry few, i f any , p rog ram s o f re sea rch inoper a t ion on cons i s t en t pa t t e rns o f i nd iv idua l d i f fe rences i n a l t ru is t i c behav io r , a l t houghjus t abo u t eve ry o the r conce ivab le re sea rch approa ch has been used ( see e .g . Rush tonand Sorrent ino , 1981). No, researchers do not s tudy the a l t ru is t ic personal i ty for thefa i rly compe l l i ng reason tha t t hey do n ' t be l ieve the re i s such a t h ing . Fo r example , Kr ebswro te"As Har tsh orne and May sho wed a hal f century ago, jus t ab out everyone wil l help in some s i tuat ions; jus tabout nobody wi l l help in other contexts ; and the same people who help in some s i tuat ions wi l l not help inothers ."and"There is l i t t le basis fo. resist ing Gergen et al. 's character izat ion of personal i ty research on al t ruism as a'quagm ire of evanescent re la t ions amon g var iables , conf lic t ing f indings, and low order correlat ion coet t ie ients '(Gergen et al., 197 2, p. 113)."

    (Krebs, 1978, p. 142)Krebs i s ce r t a in ly no t a lone in h i s v i ew. Fo r example , La t an6 ' s and Dar l ey ' s nowc la s si c m o n o g r a p h c o n c l u d e d :

    "There are . . , reasons why personal i ty should be ra ther unimpor tant in determining people 's react ions to theemergency. For one thing, the s i tuat ional forces af fect ing a p erson's decis ion are so s t ron g. . .* Por t ions of this paper were presented at the Internat ional Conference on Prosocial Behavior , Warsaw,Poland, in June 1980, enti t led "The altruist ic personality", and the 22nd Internat ion al Congress of Psychology,

    Leipzig, G erm an De mo cratic Rep ublic, in July 1980, enti t led ~The altruist ic perso nali ty and ch ildh ood antece-dents ."t Present address : Depar tme nt of Psychology, Universi ty of Western Ontar io, London, Ontar io, C anad aN6A 5C2; and to whom al l repr int requests should be addressed.

    293

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    2/10

    29 4 J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON et al.

    A second reason why personality differences may n ot lead to differences in overt behavior in an emergency isthat they may operate in opposing w ays at different stages of the intervention process."(Latan6 and Darley, 1970, p. 115JIn s h o r t , m an y i n v es t i g a t o r s h av e a p es s i m i s t i c v i ew o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f f i n d i n g a t r a i t

    o f a l t ru i s m . O n e r e as o n fo r t hi s i s t h a t t h ey b e l iev e i n t h e ' s p ec if i c i ty ' v i ew o f b eh av i o r ,b as ed f i rs t o n t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t y p i ca l co e f f i c ien t o f co n s i s t en cy ac ro s s s i t u a t i o n s i s+ 0 . 3 0 , an d s eco n d o n t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h i s co e f f i c ien t is t o o l o w t o m ak e t h e co n ce p t o f at ra i t (a l t ru i s t i c o r o therwise) very usefu l (Mischel , 1968) .

    F o r s e v e r a l d e c a d e s t h e r e h a v e b e e n t w o o p p o s i n g v i e w p o i n t s o n t h e q u e s t i o n o fw h e t h e r h u m a n b e h a v i o r is g e n e r a l ly c o n s i s t e n t in d i ff e re n t si t ua t i on s . K n o w n a s t he' s p ec i f ic i t y v e r s u s g en e ra l i t y ' co n t ro v e r s y , t h e q u es t i o n h as l o o m ed p a r t i cu l a r l y l a rg e i nt h e a r e a o f p e r s o n a l i t y a n d m o r a l b e h a v i o r . T h e c l a s s ic s t u d y o f th is p r o b l e m w a s t h ee n o r m o u s C h a r a c t e r E d u c a t i o n E n q u i r y c a r r ie d o u t b y H a r t s h o r n e a n d M a y i n t h e1 9 20 s an d p u b l i s h ed f ro m 1 9 28 to 1 9 3 0 in th r ee b o o k s : S t u d i e s i n D e c e i t , S t u d i e s i nS e r v i c e a n d S e l f - C o n t r o l a n d S t u d i e s i n th e O r g a n i z a t i o n o f C h a r a c t e r . T h i s w as an ex -t r em e l y i n f l u en t i a l s t u d y t h a t , a s E y s e n ck (1 9 77 ) an d Ru s h t o n (1 98 0 ) h av e p o i n t ed o u t ,has been ser ious ly mis in terpre ted . Let us b r ief ly cons ider i t in a l i t t l e de ta i l .

    T h es e i n v es t i g a t o r s g av e 1 1 , 00 0 e l em en t a ry a n d h i g h - s ch o o l s t u d en t s s o m e 3 3 d i f f e r en tb eh a v i o ra l t e s ts o f t h e ir a l t ru i s m ( r e f e r r ed t o a s t h e ' s e rv i ce ' te st s) , s e l f - co n t ro l an dh o n es t y i n h o m e , c l a s s ro o m , ch u rch , p l ay an d a t h l e t i c co n t ex t s . A t t h e s am e t i m e ex t en -s i ve r a t i n g s o f t h e ch i l d r en ' s r ep u t a t i o n s w i t h t h e ir t each e r s an d t h e i r c l a s s m a t es w eret ak en i n a l l t h e s e a r eas . By i n t e r co r r e l a t i n g t h e ch i l d r en ' s s co re s o n a l l t h e s e t e s t s i t w asp o s s i b l e t o d i s co v e r w h e t h e r t h e ch i l d r e n ' s b eh av i o r w as s pec i fi c t o s i t u a t i o n s o r g en e ra -l i zab le ac ro s s t h em . I f t h e ch i l d r en ' s b eh a v i o r is s p ec i fi c t o s i t u a t i o n s t h en t h e co r r e -l a t i o n s ac ro s s s i t u a t i o n s s h o u l d b e ex t r em e l y l o w o r ev en n o n ex i s t en t . I f t h e ch i l d r en ' sb eh av i o r i s g en e ra l i zab l e ac ro s s s i t u a t i o n s t h en t h e co r r e l a t i o n s s h o u l d b e s u b s t an t i a l .We t h u s h av e a c ru c i a l t e s t o f t h e g en e ra l i t y h y p o t h es i s .

    Wh a t w ere t h e r e s u l t s f ro m t h i s ex t r em e l y l a rg e an d i n t en s i v e s t u d y ? F i r s t , l e t u sco n s i d e r th e i r m eas u res o f a l t ru i s m . T h e b eh a v i o ra l i n d i ces i n t e r co r r e l a t ed a l o w av e rag eo f + 0 . 2 3 o n t h e av e rag e , t h u s s u g g es t i n g s u p p o r t f o r t h e s p ec if i c it y v iew p o i n t . I f t h e f i vem e a s u r e s w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o a b a t t e r y , h o w e v e r , t h e y c o r r el a t e d a m u c h h i g h e r + 0 . 6 1w i th t h e m e a s u r e s o f t h e c h i ld ' s a l tr u i s ti c r e p u t a t i o n a m o n g h i s o r h e r t e a c h e rs a n dc l a s s m a t e s . H a r t s h o r n e e t a l . (1929) wro te , in th i s regard :"The correlation between the total service score and the total reputation score is 0.61 ... Although this seemslow, it should be borne in mind that the correlations between test scores and ratings for intelligence seldom runhigher than 0.50.'" (Vol, 2, p. 10 7, italics added )O n t h e " G u e s s W h o " t e s t o f r e p u t a t i o n ( e.g . " G u e s s W h o is k i n d t o y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n ?" )t h e t each e r s ' p e rce p t i o n s o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' a l t r u i s m ag reed ex t r em e l y h i g h l y w it h t h a t o ft h e s t u d e n t s ' p ee r s ( r = 0 . 81 , H a r t s h o rn e et al. , 1929, Vol . 2 , p . 91) . Taken together thesel a t t e r r e su l t s i n d i ca t e a co n s i d e rab l e d eg ree o f g en e ra l i t y an d co n s i s t en c y i n a l t ru i s t i cb e h a v i o r .V i r t u a l l y i d en t i ca l r e s u lt s a s t h e ab o v e w ere fo u n d fo r t h e m eas u res o f h o n e s t y an ds e l f- c o n tr o l . A n y o n e b e h a v i o r a l t es t c o rr e l a t e d , o n a v e r ag e , o n l y a m o d e s t + 0 . 2 0 w i t ha n y o n e o t h e r b e h a v i o r a l t es t. I f, h o w e v e r , t h e m e a s u r e s w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o m o r ere l i ab l e b a t t e r i e s , t h en m u ch h i g h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w ere fo u n d w i t h e i t h e r t each e r s ' r a t i n g so f t h e ch i l d r en o r w i t h an y s i n g le m ea s u re t ak en a l o n e . T y p i ca l l y t h es e co r r e l a t i o n s w ereo n t h e fa i r l y h i g h o rd e r o f + 0 . 5 0 an d + 0 . 6 0 . (See , f o r ex am p l e , V o l . 1 , Bo o k 2 , p . 1 30 ,Table 97 ; Vol . 2 , Book 1 , p . 104 , Table 20 ; Vol . 2 , Book 2 , pp . 351-352 . )

    H a r t s h o r n e a n d M a y ( 1 92 8 -3 0 ) , h o w e v e r , f o c u s e d o v e r w h e l m i n g l y o n t h e sm a l l e r c o r -r e l a t io n s o f + 0 . 2 0 a n d + 0 . 3 0 w h i c h l e d t h e m t o c o n c l u d e i n f a v o r o f t h e d o c t r i n e o fs p ec i f i c i t y . Fo r ex am p l e , t h ey s t a t e :

    "Neither deceit nor its opposite, 'honesty" are unified character traits, but rather specific functions of lifesituations. M ost children will deceive in certain situations and not "in others. Lying. cheating, and stealing asmeasured by th e test situations used in these studies are only very loosely related."(Hartshorne and Ma y, 1928, p. 411)

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    3/10

    The al t ru is t ic personal i ty and the Sel f -Report Al t ru ism Scale 295

    Their conclusions, and their data , have of ten been referred to in defending the specif ic i tyviewpoint. For example, Mischel (1968), in a highly influential review, extolled again thenotion of specif ic i ty in behavior point ing out that the average corre la t ion between twobehavio ral ins tances of a ' t ra i t ' is + 0.20 to +0.30. Persons, therefore , are sa id to exhibit'd iscr iminat ive faci l i ty ' between s i tuat ions .

    This specif ic i ty doctr in e has p rovided a service by emphasiz ing that con texts areimp ortan t , an d that people learn different ways of dea.!ing w ith d ifferent s i tuat ions .Unfo rtunate ly , som e have in terpreted th is as mean ing that consis tency does not exis t.This however is qui te wrong. Firs t , the +0.30 corre la t ion is a repl icable f inding andindicat ive of a t least som e c onsis tency in a l t ru is t ic behavior . Second, by focusing oncorre la t ions of +0.20 and +0.30 between any two measures , a very misleading impres-s ion can be created. A more accurate representa t ion is obta ined by examining the predic-tab i l ity ach ieved f rom sampl ing a num ber o f behav io ral exempla rs. N umero us exempla rsare more re l iable and hence bet ter predic tors , a point of ten made in the past (e .g . ,Spearm an, 1910; Eysenck, 1939), but wort h repea t ing today. This greater predic tabi l i tyoccurs because there is a lways a fa ir amount of randomness in any one measure .By combining and summing over s i tuat ions the randomness (cal led ' error var iance ' )tends to average out , leaving a c learer v iew of what the person ' s t rue behavior is l ike .These expecta t ions are made explic i t in psychometr ic theory where , for example , inpersonal i ty and educat ional tes t ing, the more i tems there are on a tes t , the h igher thereliability.

    Imagine how inappropria te i t would be for professors to assess the knowledge of thestudents in their courses on the basis of one or tw o mult ip le-choice items. The in tercorre-la t ions of such i tems is typical ly aro und + 0 .20 or lower. By employ ing a larger nu mb erof items, one obta ins a far more reliab le (and fairer) assessment. This also is true inmeasuring personal i ty , including individual d ifferences in a l t ru ism and, as we have seen,com binin g individual tasks in the Hart shor ne a nd Ma y (1928-30) s tudies led to substan-t ia l predic tabi l i ty . Correla t ions of + 0 .50 and + 0.60 a l low for the acco unting of 25-36%of the variance in a set of scores.

    No t on ly did to ta l scores with in the bat tery o f a l tru ism tes ts and m easures y ie ldevidence of consis tency, but so to o d id measures of se lf-control , pers is tence, hones ty andmoral knowledge. There is , indeed, evidence for a pervasive general factor of moralcharacter (see, e.g., Hartshorne et al. , 1930, p. 230, T able 32). On e of the first to n ote thiswas Maller (1934), an aut hor of the second volu me o f the character e ducat io n inqu iry(Har t shorne et al. , 1929). He dissented from the conclusion that there exis ts l i t t le co mm o-nali ty across moral behaviors . Using Spearman 's te trad difference technique, Mailer(1934, p . 100) dem ons tra t ed a com mo n factor thro ugh out the in tercorre la t ions of thecharacter tes ts of honesty , a l t ru ism, se lf-control and pers is tence. Subsequently , Burton(1963), in a reanalysis of the or ig inal Ha rtsho rne and Ma y data , f ound a large generalfactor that acco unted for between 35 and 4070 of the com mo n variance.

    Since the p ioneering work of Hartshorne and May (1928-30) many other s tudies havealso provided dat a th at speak direct ly to the specif ic ity versus general i ty of a l t ru ismquest ion. As h as been reviewed elsewhere (Rushton, 1976, 1980) the typical corre la t ionbe tween any two behav io ra l ind ices i s abou t +0 .30 . Combin ing measures on the o the rhand, typica l ly leads to greater predic tabi l i ty . For example , Dlugok inski and Fires tone(1973) took four measures from 164 chi ldren aged 10-13: a penci l-and-paper measure ofthe re la t ive imp ortan ce of a l t ru is t ic as opposed to se lf ish values; judg me nts from the irc lassmates as to how considerate or se lf ish they were v iewed to be; and a behavioralmeasure concerned with donating money to a chari ty . The s ix possible corre la t ions wereal l posi t ive and ran ged from +0.19 to +0.38. F urther , m ult ip le corre la t ions of any threevariables as predic tors of the fourth ranged from +0.42 to +0.51. In a la ter paper ,Dlugokinski and Fires tone (1974) repl icated these re la t ionships . S t i l l o ther s tudies haveexamined the re la t ions amon g ch i ld ren 's na tu ra l ly occur r ing a lt ru ism. For example, in anextensive invest igat ion of chi ldren ' s f ree p lay behavior in a natural se t t ing, Strayer et al.(1979) s tudied 26 chi ldren over a 30-hour per iod. These authors found re la t ionships of

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    4/10

    296 J. PHILIPPE RUSH/ONet a l .

    +0 .50 and +0 .60 be tween such measu res o f a l t ru i sm as dona t ing and sha r ing ob j ect s ,coopera t i on and he lp ing .Th e forego ing review indicates ther e i s a t ra i t of a l t ru ism. Tha t i s, some people arecons i s t en t ly mor e gene rous , he lp ing and k ind tha n o the rs . Fu r the rmor e , such peop le a rereadi ly perceived as more a l t ru is t ic , as i s demonst ra ted by several s tudies showing posi -t i ve re l a t i onsh ips be tween beha v io ra l a l t ru i sm and pee rs ' and t eache rs ' ra t ings o f howal t ru is t ic a person seems (Dlugokinski and Fi restone, 1973, 1974; Hartshorne et al., 1929;Krebs an d S tu r rup , 1974; Rush ton and W hee lwr igh t , 1980 ; Ru the r fo rd and Mussen ,1968). Indeed there are several s tudies that have shown that indiv idual d i fferences inpaper -and -penc i l measu res o f such cons t ruc t s a s empa thy , m ora l reason ing , and soc ia lresponsib i l i ty a lso predic t s i tuat ional ly measured a l t ru ism (see Rushton, 1980, for areview). We shal l provide a ddi t io nal e videnc e and d iscuss ion of th is shortly .

    This leads us d i rect ly to the second hal f of th is paper. I f there are consis tent pat terns tothe indiv idual d i fferences in a l t ru is t ic behav ior , then i t should be possib le to demo nst ra teth i s by measu r ing t hem d i rec t l y t h rough se l f - repo r t ques t i onna i re s , a s has been donesuccessfu l ly , for example , wi th indiv idual d i fferences in del inquency (e .g . Rushton andChris john, 1981). We report three invest igat ions to support th is hypothesis .

    T H E S E L F - R E P O R T A L T R U I S M S C A L EThe Se l f -Repor t A l t ru i sm (SRA) Sca l e has an easy - to -admin i s t e r , se l f - repo r t fo rma t

    and consis t s of the 20 items show n in Ta ble 1. Res pond ents are inst ructed to ra te thefrequ ency wi th which they have engaged in the a l t ru is t ic behaviors using the categories'Never ' , 'Once ' , 'More Th an Once . 'Of t en ' and 'Very Of t en '.

    In i ti a l ana lyses o f da t a co l l ec t ed f rom two sepa ra t e samples o f s t uden t s a t t he Un ive r -s i ty o f Wes t e r n On ta r io , dem ons t ra t ed t he SRA-sca l e to be p sychomet r i ca l l y s t ab l e. Thetwo samples y i e lded com para b l e mean s and s t andard dev ia t ions and h igh int e rna l con -sis tency (see Tab le 2). Fu rth erm ore , the d iscrim inant v al id i ty of the scale was found to begood . Th i s was assessed by examin a t ion o f the co r re l a t i ons be tween i t and an omnibu spersonal i ty inventory measuring 20 d i fferent personal i ty t ra i t s (Jackson, 1974). Of par-t i cu la r no t e was t he co r re l a t i on be tw een the SRA-sca l e and a measu re o f soc ia l desi rab i-l i ty (r = 0 .05) suggest ing tha t the SRA-scale i s not mere ly measuring the tende ncy toanswer in a socia l ly desi rable fashion. Several addi t ional s tudies were carr ied out toexamine the predic t ive val id i ty of the SRA-scale .Study 1: peer ratings

    If the SRA -scale is val id ly me asur ing a l t ru ism, the n scores on the SR A-scale shouldco r re l a t e w i th pee r ra t i ngs o f a lt ru i sm . To exa mine t h is , 118 underg radua t es a t TheUniv ersi ty of We stern On tar io in i t ia l ly f i lled out the SRA-scale during c lass time. Subse-quen t ly t hey were g iven e igh t pee r ra t i ng fo rms and e igh t p res t amped and add ressedenve lopes and were a sked to g ive t hese fo rms to e igh t peop le who knew them we ll .Ra t e rs were t o be a sked to comple t e t he fo rms anonymous ly and ma i l t hem back to t heau tho rs .

    The pee r ra t i ng fo rm s were d iv ided in to two sec t ions . One sec t i on a sked the j udges t oassess how frequent ly the target subject engaged in the 20 d i fferent behaviors compris ingthe i tems of the SRA-scale . Ano ther s ect ion asked for four g lobal ra t ings of the targetpe rson ' s a l t ru i sm -- th a t is, how ca r ing , how he lp ful , how cons ide ra t e o f o the rs ' fee li ngsand h ow wi l l ing to ma ke a sacri f ice the indiv idual was. Each o f these ra t ings was to bemade on a 7 -po in t sca l e .

    There were 968 peer ra t ing forms d is t r ibuted to the 118 subjects who in i t ia l ly com-pleted the SRA-scale in c lass . Approximately 45~o of the peer ra t ing forms were re turned(N = 416) and 88 subjects (75 ~ o f the subjects in the orig inal sample) had one or m orera t e rs . The mean and s t and ard dev ia t i on fo r t h is t h i rd sample were s im i l ar t o t hose i n t hetwo ea r l i e r samples and the i n t e rna l cons i s t ency o f t he SRA-sca le was once aga in fou ndto be h igh (see Table 2) .

    A peer ra t ing score on the 20 i tem scale was found by summing across the 20 i tems for

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    5/10

    The altruistic personality and the Self-Report Altruism Scale 297Table 1. The Self-Report Altruism Scale Instructions: Tick the category on the right that conforms to thefrequency with which you have carried out the following acts.

    Morethan VeryNever Once once Often often1. I have helped push a stranger's car out of the snow.2. I have given directions to a stranger.3. I have made change for a stranger.4. I have given money to a charity.5. I have given money to a stranger who needed it(or asked me for it).6. I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.7. I have done volunteer work for a charity.8. I have donated blood.9. I have helped carry a stranger's belongings(books, parcels, etc.).

    10. I have delayed an elevator and held the dooropen for a stranger.11. I have allowed someone to go ahead of mein a lineup (at Xerox machine, in the supermarket).12. I have given a stranger a lift in my car.13. l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at thesupermarket) in undercharging me for an item.14. I have let a neighbour whom I didn't know toowell borrow an item of some value to me(e.g., a dish, tools, etc.).15. I have bought 'chari ty' Christmas cardsdeliberately because I knew it was a good cause.16. 1 have helped a classmate who 1 didnot know that well with a homeworkassignment when my knowledge was greaterthan his or hers.17. I have before being asked, voluntarily looked aftera neighbour's pets or children without beingpaid for it.18. I have offered to help a handicappedor elderly stranger across a street.19. I have offered my seat on a bus ortrain to a stranger who was standing.20. I have helped an aquaintance to move households.

    each r a te r , add ing thes e to ta l s, and then d iv id ing by the num ber o f r a te r s (pee r - r a ted -SRA-s ca le a l t ru i s m) . A peer r a t ing s co re was a l s o ca lcu la ted on the fou r - i t em g loba l t e s tby s um m ing ac ros s the fou r i t em s fo r each r a te r , add ing thes e to ta l s and d iv id ing by thenum ber o f r a te r s (pee r - r a ted -g loba l - a l t ru i s m ) .

    The r e l i ab i l i ty o f the pee r r a t ings were as s es s ed ; s p l i t -ha l f r e l i abi l i t i e s were com putedus ing odd a nd even num bered r a te r s ac ros s the 80 s ub jec t s who ha d t wo o r m ore r a te r s.This y i elded a s ignif icant in ter rate r re l iabi l i ty of r (78) = +0.51 (P < 0.01) for the peer-r a ted - SRA-s ca l e a l t ru i s m s co res and r (78 ) = +0 . 39 (P < 0 .01) fo r the pee r - r a t ed -g lob a l -P.A.LD. 2r4" (

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    6/10

    298 J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON et a l .

    Table 2. Means, standa rd de viatio ns and reliabilities for five samples of SRA-scale respondentsSamp le 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

    Sam ple size 99 56 118 146 192Co mb in ed me an 52.01 55.34 57.09 57.11 55.47St an da rd de via tio n 10.12 10.46 8.89 11.70 11.70Coefficient alp ha 0.84 0.83 0.78 0.87 0.86No. of male s 36 27 39 64 --Me an for mal es 52.30 55.15 55 56.29 - -Sta nda rd devi atio n 10.80 9.80 7.40 12.50 --No. of females 63 29 79 82 --Me an for fem ale s 51.8 54.76 57.22 57.75 - -Sta ndar d dev iat ion 9.8 12.50 10.00 11.00 --

    a l t r u i s m meas u re . The s e f igu res s ugges t t he r e i s s om e deg ree o f cons ens us a m ong pee r s inthes e r a t ings o f the i r f r iends. The in t e rna l cons i s t ency o f the 20 - i t em pee r r a t ing fo rm wasalso calc u la ted and found to be ex tre me ly h igh (~ = 0 .89 , N = 416) . Ot her analysessho we d re l iab i l i ty in ra t ings even a t the i tem level (Fekk en, 1980) . The cor r e la t ionbe twee n pee r - r a t ed -S R A-s ca le a l t r u i s m and pee r - r a t ed -g loba l a l t r u i s m w as r(86 ) = 0 .54(P < 0.001).

    The va l id i ty o f the S R A-s ca le was a s s es s ed by co r r e l a t ing i t wi th the pee r r a t ings . Thec o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e S R A - s c a l e a n d p e e r - r a t e d - S R A - s c a l e a l t r u i s m a n d p e e r - r a t e d -gl ob al- alt rui sm wer e r(86) = 0.35 (P < 0.001) a nd r(86) = 0.21 (P < 0.05), respe ctive ly.T h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e r e c o m p u t e d c o r r e c t i n g f or a t t e n u a t i o n d u e t o u n r e li a b il i ty o fm e a s u r e m e n t . U s i n g S p e a r m a n ' s c o r r e c t i o n f o r m u l a a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a a sthe re l iab i l i ty of the SRA -scale , and the in ter ra ter cor re la t io ns as the re l iab il i t ies of thepee r r a t ings , t he co r r e l a t ions o f the S R A-s ca le wi th pe e r - r a t ed S R A-s ca le a l t r u i s m andpeer- ra ted-g lobal-a l t ru ism were ra ised to r (78) = 0 .56 and r (78) = 0 .33 respect ively .

    To s umm ar ize , t he f ind ings f rom S tudy 1 s upp o r t t he idea o f cons i s t en t i nd iv idua ld i f f e rences in a l t r u i s t ic beha v io r in two ways . F i r s t, t h e r e was s ome ag reem en t am ongpee r s ' r a t ings o f an ind iv idua l ' s a l t r u i s ti c behav io r . S econd , be t t e r t ha n chance ag reem en twas a l s o found be twee n an ind iv idua l ' s own r e po r t o f hi s o r he r a l tr u i s t i c behav io r andh i s o r he r pe e r s ' r epo r t s .Stud)' 2: predict ing al truist ic responses

    The pu rp os e o f th i s s tudy was to p r ov ide fu r the r ev idence fo r the cons i s t ency o fa l t r u i s m b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e S R A - s c al e w o u l d b e r e la t e d t o o t h e r m e a s u r e s o fa l t r u i s m. In th i s s tudy , ca r r i ed ou t w i th 146 unde rg radua te s ove r th r ee t e s t ing s e ss ions ,the S R A-s ca le was co r r e l a t ed wi th e igh t ' a l t r u i s t i c ' r e s pons es . Thes e inc luded ( i ) vo lun -t ee r ing to r ead to b l ind pe r s ons in r e s pons e to a t e l ephone s o l i c i t a t ion ; ( i i ) vo lun tee r ingto pa r t i c ipa te in expe r imen t s f o r a needy expe r imen te r ; ( i i i ) whe the r they had eve r t akena f ir s t a id cou r s e ; (iv) whe the r they had co mple ted the med ica l o rg an don o r c a rd wh ich i sa t t ach ed to a ll On ta r io d r ive r s ' l i cens es ; ( v) a ques t ionn a i r e meas u r ing ' s en s i t ive a t t i -t u d e s ' c o m p i l e d b y t h e E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v ic e ( E T S: D e r m a n et al., 1978); (vi) then u r t u r a n c e s c al e o f t h e P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h F o r m , a n o m n i b u s p e r s o n a l i ty i n v e n t o r y(PRF: J acks on , 1974 ); ( vi i) pape r - and -penc i l m eas u r es o f he lp ing in emergenc y ' sce -na r io s ; ' and (v ii i) hav ing he lp ing in t e r e s t s on the J a cks o n V oca t io na l I n t e r e s t S u rvey(JVIS: Jackson, 1977) .

    The mea ns and s t a nda r d dev ia t ions o f the s e l f- r epo r t a l t r u i s m s ca le fo r th i s f ou r ths a m p l e a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e 2 . T h e i n t e r c o r r e la t i o n s a m o n g t h e S R A - s c al e a n d t h e e ig h tmea s u res des c r ibed above , a s we ll a s wi th a me as u re o f s oc ia l des ir ab i l i t y r e s pond ing , a r es hown in Tab le 3 above the d i agona l . The co r r e l a t ions wi th s oc ia l des i r ab i l i t y pa r t i a l l edou t a r e s hown be low the d iagona l . The S R A-s ca le was found to be pos i t ive ly and s ign i f i -can t ly r e l a t ed to fou r meas u res : hav ing f i l l ed ou t the o rgan dona t ion ca rd , t he ETS pape rand penc i l me as u re o f ' s en s i t ive a t t i t ude , ' t h e P R F nu f t u r an ce s cale , and the re s pons es tothe a l t r u i s m s imu la t ions . The S R A-s ca le was a l s o found to p r ed ic t a l i nea r comb ina t ion

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    7/10

    The al t ru is t ic personal i ty and the Self -Report Al t ru ism Scale 299

    of the e ight measures a t r = +0 .40 (P < 0 .01) . Wh en co rrect ions were ma de for theunrel iabi l i ty of the measures , the mult ip le corre la t i on rose to r = +0.59. As can a lso beseen in Table 3 , these resul ts are not due to socia l desirabi l i ty response bias .

    To summarize , th is s tudy a lso found support for the v iew that individual d ifferences inal tru is t ic behavio r show consis tency. I t found tha t an individual ' s se lf-reported a l t ru ismwas re la ted to a var ie ty of a l t ru is t ic cr i teria , and that when these cr i ter ia were c ombine d,a somewhat s tronger re la t ionship obta ined.Study 3: convergent validity

    In order to examine the re la t ionship between the SRA-scale and exis t ing measures ofsocia l responsibi l i ty , empathy, moral judgment and prosocia l values , a var ie ty of scaleswere given to some 200 univers i ty s tudents . These scales included: the Socia l Responsi-bi l i ty Scale (Berkowitz and Daniels , 1964); the Emotional Empathy Scale (Mehrabianand Epste in , 1972); the Socia l In terest Scale (Crandall , 1975); the Fantasy-EmpathyScale (Stot land et al., 1978); the Machiavellianism scale (Christie and Geis, 1968); theRok each V alue Survey (Form C, Rokeach, 1973); the Nur turan ce scale of the Persona l i tyResearch Form (PRF: Jackson, 1974); and the Defining Issues Test (Rest , 1979).Alt houg h space does not a l low a fu l l descr ip t ion of each of these scales , their f lavor canbe gauged from the fo l lowing i tems. "I am the kind of person people can coun t on," forexample , is taken from the Socia l Responsibi l i ty Quest ionnaire . I tems such as the posi-t ively loaded "I real ly get involved with the feel ings of the character in a novel" and thenegatively loaded "I f ind it si l ly for people to cry ou t of happiness" are from the E mp ath yScales . F inal ly , a measu re of socia l i r responsibi l ity , the Machiave l l ianism scale , involvesagreement with i tems such as "Anyone who complete ly t rusts anyone e lse is asking fortrouble" and disagreement with "Most men are brave." The socia l desirabi l i ty scale of thePersona l i ty Research For m (PR F: J ackson, 1974) was a lso adminis tered.

    The means and s tandard deviat ions of the se lf-report a l t ru ism scale for th is f i f thsample are shown in Table 2. The in tercorre la t ions o f the various personal i ty tes ts can beseen in Table 4 . The SRA-scale corre la ted posi t ively with measures of socia l responsi-bi l i ty , empathy, nurturance, having equal i ty and helpfulness as personal values , having'h igh ' levels of mor al reasoning, and negat ively with Mach iavel l ianism. Thus know ledgeof how people endorse i tems such as "I am the k ind of person tha t people can cou nt on "and "I real ly get involved with the feel ings of the character in a novel" a l lows a greaterthan chance predic t ion o f whether the y report having engaged in such diverse behaviorsas makin g change for a s tranger and a l lowing som eone to go f i rs t on a xerox mac hine orat a super mark et check-out counter . The self report a l t ru ism scale a lso predic ted anaggregated com posi te of the n ine other measures of prosocia l value a tr(135) = +0.44(P < 0.001).

    For a subsam ple o f 93 of the or ig inal 200, PR F socia l desirabil i ty scores were avail-able. L ow but s ignif icant ly posi t ive re la t ionships were fou nd betwee n socia l desirabi l i tyand a l l the quest ionnaire measures of prosocia l or ien ta t ion. Nonetheless , when socia ldesirabi l i ty was covaried , the re la t ionships in Table 4 , and that between the SRA-scaleand the composi te , remained in tact .To summarize , th is s tudy found s ignif icant posi t ive re la t ions among a var ie ty of ques-t ionnai re m easures of prosocia l or ienta t ion. Self-reported a l t ru ism was re la ted to a l l ofthese , and part icular ly so to an aggregated composi te .

    D I S C U S S I O NThis paper has provided evidence, f rom both a review of the l i tera ture , and from aser ies of s tudies using a se lf-rep ort a l t ru ism scale, that the re is a broad-b ased tra i t ofa l t ru ism. K now ing a person 's score on one i tem of behavior , or on se lf-report quest ion-

    naires , a l lows bet ter than chance predic t ion of that person ' s behavior in o ther tes t s i tu-a t ions . The Self-Report Altru ism Scale , for example , co rre la ted s ignif icantly posi tivelywi th pee r - ra t ings o f al t ru i sm, whe ther s tuden ts ha d comple ted the med ica l o rgan-d onorcard which is a t tach ed to a l l Onta r io dr ivers ' i icences , and a v ar ie ty of paper-and-penc i l-

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    8/10

    Table 3. Correlat ions among measures (below diagonal wi th PRF social des i rabi l i ty par t ia l led out )Exper imental ETSSRA Volunteer par t ic ipat ion Fi rs t Organ ' sensi t ive PRF . IVIS PRF socialscale to read quest ionnai re a id donat io n at t i tude ' nur turan ce Simulat ions helping des i rabi l i ty

    SRA scale 1.00 0.09 -0. 03 0.12 0.24* 0.32** 0.27** 0.32** 0.17 0.10Volun teer to read 0.09 1.00 0.28** 0.19 -0 .09 0.15 0.06 0.32** -0 .07 0.00Exper imental par t ic ipat ionQues tionn aire -0. 02 0.28** 1.00 0.06 -0. 19 0.06 -0 .09 0.13 0.02 0.04Firs t aid 0.11 0.19 0.05 1.00 0.05 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.04 -0 .0 6Organ donat ion 0.25** -0.0 8 -0.1 8 0.04 1.00 0.03 -0.0 3 0.04 0.03 0.12ETS 'sensitive atti tud e' 0.33** 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.08 1.00 0.50** 0.16 0.39** 0.48**PRF nurtu ranc e 0.28** 0.06 -0 .06 0.10 0.02 0.59** 1.00 0.23** 0.35** 0.40**Simu lations 0.33** 0.31"* 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.28** 0.32** 1.00 0.02 0.29**JVIS helping 0.18 -0. 08 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.38** 0.34** 0.04 1.00 0.07

    * Significant at 0.05 level.** Significant at 0.01 level.

    Table 4. Intercorrelat ions of personal i ty measures , convergent val idi ty s tudy#1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    ..rr"

    70c

    Z

    1. Self-repo rt altruism 1.002. Social respon sibility 0.15"* 1.003. Emot ional empathy 0.17'* 0.25** 1.004. Social interest 0.07 0.16" 0.29** 1.005. Fan tas y-e mp ath y 0.20** 0.17"* 0.28** 0.09 1.006. PRF -nu rtura nce 0.28** 0.35** 0.49** 0.30** 0.127 . Ma c h i a vel l ia n i s m - 0 . 13" - 0 . 52** - 0 . 34** - 0 . 15" - 0 . 098. Roke ach's equality 0.12 0.17"* 0.15" 0.09 0.069. Roke ach's helpful 0.14" 0.05 0.26** 0.19"* 0.0910. Rest ' s moral judgme nts 0.16"* 0.18"* 0.11 -0.0 8 -0.0 8

    1.00- 0 . 3 7 * * 1.000.21"* -0.1 7"* 1.000.40** -0.1 9"* 0.24** 1.000.04 -0.22 ** 0.11 -0.0 5 1.00* P < 0 .05; ** P < 0.01 P < 0.001.t Correlat ions and s igni f icance levels are based on di f fer ing numbers of subject s depending on the useabi l i ty of individual records .

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    9/10

    The altruistic personality and the Self-Report Altruism Scale 301measu res of mo ral r easoning , nurturanc e, sensi t ive-a t t i tude, socia l responsib i l i ty ,emp a thy and p rosoc i a l va lues . A l though a l l o f t hese co r re l a t i ons a re l ow, t aken tog e the rthey suppor t t he i dea o f a b roa d based p rosoc i a l d i spos i t ion . Peop le h igh in p roso c i a ld i spos i t i on a re expec t ed t o behave p rosoc i a l l y ove r a d ive rse range o f s i t ua t i ons .A l though any two measu res i n t e rco r re l a t e , on ave rage , on ly a modes t +0 .20 , h ighe rco r re l a t i ons t yp i ca l l y occu r i f t he p r inc ipa l o f agg rega t ion i s adhered t o .I t is wor th no t ing t ha t m any o f t he i nd iv idua l ques t i onna i re s u sed in t he l a s t s t udy(Table 4) have been f ound to p redic t s i tuat ional tes t s of a l t ru is t ic behavior . This l i tera turehas been reviewed by Rushton (1980), but a few of the s tudies might brief ly be described.Berkowi tz and Daniels (1964) found the Socia l Responsib i l i ty Scale to predic t thenum ber o f i t ems mad e fo r a pe rson a l l eged ly depen den t on t he sub jec t . Mid l a rsky andBryan (1972) used a s imi lar scale wi th chi ldren and found i t to predic t donat ing tocha r i t y on bo th immed ia t e and subsequen t t e s t s . Mehrab i an and Eps t e in (1972) foundtha t peop le ' s empa thy sco res p red i c ted bo th a re fusa l t o admin i s t e r h igh l evel s o f el ec tr i cshock , and ag reemen t t o he lp an emot iona l ly upse t pe rson . S t aub (1974) found tha t anum ber o f ques t i onna i re measu res i nc lud ing soc i a l re sponsib i li t y , Mach iave l l ian i sm ,mora l j udgmen t , and hav ing he lpfu l va lues, g rou ped toge the r on a s ingl e fac to r i n afactor analysis , a long wi th h igh scores on actual help ing .One aspect of S taub 's (1974) s tudy was that a person 's level of moral judgment ,measu red us ing Ko h lbe rg ' s (1969) d i l emmas , co r re l a t ed wi th t rad i t iona l mora l a t t it udes ,as well as wi th help ing beha vior . An in terest ing aspe ct of Tab le 4 in th is re gard i s thepos i t i ve re la t i on be tween Res t ' s (1979) Def in ing I s sues Tes t o f mora l j udgm en t and thet radi t i onal q uest ion nai res o f socia l responsib i l i ty , as well as wi th se l f-report a l t ru ism. I twou ld seem tha t t he re l a t ionsh ip be tween h igh mora l j udgm en t and a l t ru is t i c behav io r i sa posi t ive one, as o ther s tudies , a l so reviewed by Rushton (1980), demonst ra te .

    In short , there appea rs to be a t ra i t of a l t ru ism. Th is t ra i t can be assessed by theman ner i n wh ich a pe rson endorses o r re sponds t o i t ems on a nu mber o f penc i l -and -paper -meas u res o f mora l j udgmen t , soc i a l re spons ib i l it y , and m ora l knowledge , a l l o fwh ich , i n t u rn , a re re l a t ed t o more ove r t behav io r .In rega rd t o t he Se l f -Repor t A l t ru i sm Scal e, wh i l e it has been use fu l fo r demons t r a t i ngthe b road -b ase o f t he p rosoc i a l behav io r t rai t, i t is p robab ly no t a m ax imal ly e f fec ti veway o f measu r ing t h i s tra i t. I t ma y be t oo spec if ic . The more u sua l fo rma t o f pe rsona l i t yinven to r i e s is t o a sk a re sp onden t t o m ake genera l in fe rences abou t h imse l f o r he rse lf . Byrequ i r ing ou r re sp onden t s t o m ake h igh ly spec if i c s t a t emen t s a s t o t he i r pas t be hav io r(e .g . " I have dona t ed b lood- -never , once , more t han once , o f t en , and ve ry o f t en" ) wecons t ra ine d thei r answers . This was a qui te del ibera te pol icy for we wished to me asuresometh ing qu i t e behav io ra l l y concre t e . And we have demons t ra t ed t ha t such concre t eand spec if i c behav io ra l i t ems a re p red i c t ive o f each o the r , a s we l l as o f mo re g loba lmeasu res . Fu r the r mo re t he i t ems a re remarka b ly f ree o f such re sponse b i a ses a s soc i a ldes i rab i l it y . How ever , t o t ap max imal ly i n to t he b ro ad based t ra i t o f p rosoc i a lness , i tm igh t be more u se fu l t o employ a more gene ra l and g loba l re sponse fo rma t t han the oneused he re . One a l t e rna t ive i s t o a sk re sponden t s t o ima#ine they are in a s i tuat ion wherethey could engage in the sort of i tems on the SRA-scale , and t hen to es t ima te thep robab i l i t y t ha t t hey wou ld do so . A l t e rna t ive ly re sea rche rs may p re fe r t o employ acom bina t ion o f t he nu r tu rance , soc ia l re spons ib il i ty , and em pa thy sca le s desc r ibed above .

    Hav ing qua l i f i ed ou r en thus i a sm fo r ou r re sea rch i n s t rumen t , we shou ld none the l esspo in t ou t t ha t t he re i s ev idence t ha t t he sca l e does re l a t e t o ce r t a in expec t ed an t eceden t so f a l t ru is t i c behav io r . In unpub l i shed p i l o t da t a we foun d SRA-sca le sco res re l a t ed t o suchse l f - repo rt soc i a l i za t ion an t eceden t s a s whe the r t he re sp onden t had an a l t ru is t i c pa ren t .Ther e is a l a rge l i t e ra tu re t o sugges t t ha t pa ren t a l mode l s a re o f g rea t impor t ance i n t heea r ly deve lopm en t o f a l tru i s t i c behav io r (Rush ton , 1980) . An adequ a t e re sea rch i n s t ru -ment in th is area would a lso a l low us to tes t the in terest ing ideas , emerging out ofsoc iob io logy , t ha t he red i ty may make a c on t r i bu t ion t o t he cons is t en t pa t t e rns o f i nd i-v idual d i fferences in hum an al t ru ism (Ey senck, 1980; Rus hton, 1980; Wilson, 1975).These are exci t ing research possib i l i t ies for the fu ture .

  • 7/30/2019 Rushton1981the Altruistic Personality

    10/10

    302 J. PHILIPPE RUSHTONet al.Acknowledgements- -Research support was provided by Grant No. 410-78-1061 from the Social Sciences andHuman i t ies Research Counci l of Canad a, J . Phi l ippe R ushton pr incipal invest igator . S tudies 1 and 2 are basedon a 1980 disser ta t ion subm i t ted by G. Cy nthia Fe kken to The Univers ity of Western Ontar io in par t ia lfulfi l lment of the requirements for the M.A. degree.We would l ike to thank Natal ie Al len and Ron Holden for thei r help in gather ing the data, Doug las N.Jackson for const ruct ive cr i tic i sm and interes t and S teve Lupker for suggest ions regarding the SRA-scale .

    R E F E R E N C E SBERKOWITZ L. a nd DANmLS L. R. (1964) Affecting the salience o f the social resp onsib ility n orm : effects of pasthelp on the response to dependency rela t ionships . J. abnorm, soc. Psychol. 68, 275-281.BURTON R. V. (1963) Genera li ty of ho nes ty rec onsidered. Psychol. Rev. 70, 481-499.CHRISTIE R. a nd GElS G. (Ed s) (1968) Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press, New York.CRANDALL J. E. (1975) A sc ale fo r so cial interes t. J. individ. Psychol. 31, 187-195.DERMAN D., FRENCH J. W. an d HARMAN H. H. (1978) Guide to Factor Referenced Temperament Scales 1978.Educa t ional Test ing Service, Pr inceton.DLUGOKINSKI E. an d FIRESTONE I. J. (1973) Con grue nce amo ng four metho ds of m easurin g other-centered ness.Child Dev. 44, 304-308.DLUGOKINSKI E. an d FIRESTONE I. J. (1974) Oth er cen tered nes s an d suscep tibility to cha rita ble app eals : effectsof perceived discipline. Devl Psychol. 10, 21-28.EYSENCK H. J. (1939) The validity of judgm ents as a function of the num ber o f judges. J. exp. Psychol. 25 ,650-654.EYSENCK H. J. (1977) Crime and Personali ty, 3rd edn. Granada Publ i shing Ltd, S t AIbans , England.EYSENCK H. J. (1980) Behavior Modif ication, Behavior Therapy and Other Matters: A Dialogue with B. F.Skinner. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Convent ion of the American Psychological Associat ion,Montreal , Canada, September , 1980.FEKKEN G. C. (1980) The Validation of a Self-Report Mea sure of Altruism. Unpubl i shed Masters Thesis : TheUnivers i ty of W6stern Ontarlo. - -HARTSHORNE H. an d MAY M. A. (1928) Studies in the Nature of Character, Vol. I, Studies in Deceit. Macmil lan,New York.HARTSHORNE H., MAY M. A. a nd MALLER J. B. (19 29) Studies in the Nature of Character, Vol. II , Studies inSelf-Control . Macmil lan, New York.HAR'rSHORNE H., MAY M. A. a nd SHUTTLEWORTH F. K. (1930) Studie s in the Natu re of Character, Vol. III,Studies in the Organization o f Character. Macmil lan, New York.JACKSON I). N. 09-'14-)-Pe rsonaliiy R--e-se--arch Fo rm Ma nu al, Revised edn. Research Psychologists Press, Port

    Huron, Michigan.JACKSON D. N. (1977) Jackson Vocational Interest Survey Manual. Research Psychologists Press, London.KOHLaERG L. (1969) Stage and seque nce: the co gnit ive -deve lopm ental approac h to socialization. In Handbookof Socializatian Theor y and Research (Edited by GosLn~ D.). Rand-McNally, Chicago.KREBS D. L. (19~8) A cognit ive-de velop men tal app roa ch to al truism . In Altruism, Sympathy and Helping:Psychological and Sociological Principles (Edi ted by WxsP: L.). Academ ic Press.KREaS D. L . an d Sa 'u~ tJP B. (1974) R ole- taking abi l i ty and al t ruis t ic behavior in e lem entary school chi ldren.Person. soc. Psychol. Bull. 1,407--409.LATAI'~ B. a nd DARLEY J. M. (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why doesn't he Help? Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.MALLER J. B. (1934) Gen eral and specific factors in character. J. soc. Psychol. 5, 97-102.MEHRABIAN A. an d EPSTEIN N. (1972) A me asu re of em otio nal em path y. J. Person. 40, 525-543.MmLARSKY E. an d BRYAN J. H. (1972) Affect expres sions and childr en's imitative altruism. J. exp. Res. Person.6, 195--203.MISCHEL W. (1968) Personali ty and Assessment. Wiley, New York.REST J. R. (1979) Development in Judging Moral Issues. Univ. of Minnesota Press , Minneapol i s , Minnesota .ROKEAOt M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York.RusIrrON J. P. (1976) Socialization and the altruist ic behavior of children. Psychol. Bull. 83, 898-913.RusH-tON J. P. (1980) Altruism, Socialization and Society. Prentice-Ha ll , Englew ood Cliffs, New Jersey.RtJsn'roN J. P. and C-MlUS~OI-INR. D. (1981) Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and self-reported delin-quency: evidence f rom eight separa te samples . Person. indioid. Diff. 2, 11-20.RrosrrroN J. P. a nd SORRENTINO R. M. (Ed s) (1981) Altruism and Helping Behavior. Lawrence Er lbaum Associ -ates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.RusrrroN J. P. a nd WHEELWRIGHT M. (1980) Valid ation of don atin g to chari ty as a m easure of children'saltruism. Psychol. Rep. 47, 803-806.Ru 'rm ~O RD E. and MUSSEN P. (1968) Gene rosity in nurse ry scho ol boys. Child Dev. 39, 755-765.SPEARMAN C. (1910) C orre lation calcula ted from faulty data. Br. J. Psychol. 3, 271-295.STAUB E. (1974) Helping a dis tressed person: social , personal i ty and s t imulus determinants . In Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7 (Edited by BERKOWn'Z L.). Academ ic Press, N ew York.STOTLAND E , MATi~WS K . E., SHIPMAN S. E, HANSSON R. O. a nd RICHARDSON B. Z. (1978) Empathy, Fantasyand Helping. Sage, B everly Hills, California.STRAYER F. F., WAREING S. and RUSH~N J. P. (1979) Social con strain ts on natu rally occurring presch oolal t ruism. Ethology Sociobiol. 1, 3-11.WILSON E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.S.A.