• 검색 결과가 없습니다.

Manipulations of Symbolic and Live Modeling

문서에서 비영리 - S-Space - 서울대학교 (페이지 60-64)

Manipulation of Symbolic Modeling Condition

To manipulate the symbolic modeling condition, three scripts were developed and employed in the pilot studies. The only difference between the control condition (i.e., absence of symbolic modeling) and the

experimental condition (i.e., presence of symbolic modeling) was the type of scripts read by participants. Participants in the absence of symbolic modeling condition read the control script that did not contain prosocial behavior but neutral behavior such as traveling or attending a cooking class (Appendix C). On the other hand, participants in the presence of symbolic modeling condition read the script containing prosocial behaviors

(Appendix D). Scripts were composed of 5 to 8 sentences and contained 66 words on average (SD = 8.4).

53

Pilot studies for developing materials for symbolic modeling condition. Pilot studies were conducted with college students to test the validity of the manipulation of symbolic modeling condition. A total of 97 students (Mean age = 22.49, SD = 2.20) participated in the pilot studies. In the first study, 12 participants read five scripts including 3 to 5 sentences that were designed to describe people’s helping-related behaviors, with the words “help”, “donation”, and “voluntary service”. In addition, the scripts contained descriptions of positive consequences (i.e., receiving awards).

Participants were told to write about the main theme of the scripts, the characteristics of the main characters and the difficulties of the scripts (Appendix E). From the first pilot study, scripts had to be revised because participants tended to focus on the fact that the character was awarded. In three scripts out of the five (second, third, and forth scripts in Appnedix E), all participants answered the main themes of the scripts as “receiving an award”. Therefore, the portrayal of the award was eliminated in the revised scripts. Instead, intrinsic rewards, such as feeling proud and happy, were involved. To enhance the sense of reality, contents were added in detail (e.g., community name, location in which the prosocial behavior occurred).

In the second pilot study, two different kinds of scripts were used:

One was the modified version of the prior three scripts from the first pilot study (Appendix F) and the other version served as the control script (Appendix G), which did not include prosocial-related words. A total of 62

54

participants were randomly assigned to read either the prosocial script (n = 32) or the control script (n = 30). In a similar way as the first pilot study, participants were told to write about the characteristics of those who appeared in the scripts. According to the participants’ answers, the scripts were modified again. Especially for the first scripts in Appendix F, 5 participants (16%) described the protagonist’s characteristic as “showing off the company’s prosocial behavior” and 9 participants (28%) answered

“official”. Therefore, the contents about the company were deleted and all scripts were revised so that it read as if college students who performed prosocial behavior had written the scripts.

In the final pilot study, 23 participants read the final version of three prosocial scripts (n = 12) and three control scripts (n = 11). These scripts were used in the main study. In the subsequent question, all participants were informed to write the possible ways of social contributions. In this preliminary statistical analysis, participants who read prosocial scripts, which contained symbolic modeling of prosocial behavior, reported more possible ways to contribute to the society (M = 3.36, SD = 1.92) than those who read the control scripts (M = 1.27, SD = 1.19), in which had the

symbolic modeling of prosocial behavior was absent (t (21) = 3.10, p = .005, Cohen’s d = 1.31).

55

Manipulation of Live Modeling Condition

To manipulate the live modeling condition, three student-

confederates (always 1 male and 2 female) were employed. The number of confederates was pre-determined based on the previous studies. Social influence varied depending on the number of people of a group (Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969). Prior results suggest that three people lead to the most effective impact on the other’s behavior (Asch, 1955).

Generally, as the number of confederates increased, the effects increased;

however, when the number of confederates reaches three, there are no significant differences of effects among four or five confederates. Therefore, the number of confederates was determined as three.

The only difference between the control condition (i.e., absence of live modeling) and the experimental condition (i.e., presence of live modeling) was the behaviors of confederates. The confederates in the absence of live modeling condition did not behave prosocially. On the contrary, the confederates in the presence of live modeling condition behaved prosocially. That is, in the absence of live modeling condition, three confederates attended in neither signature campaign nor donation. In contrast, the confederates were willing to help and attend collecting signature campaign and donation for sick babies in the presence of live modeling condition. To make sure the manipulation, one confederate asked aloud an experimenter right after the instruction of the campaign. This manner for manipulating live modeling is adopted from the previous study

56

(Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009). In the absence of live modeling, a

confederate asked “I don’t have to attend these campaigns, do I?” and the experimenter answered, “Sure, it is not mandatory”. In contrast, in the presence of live modeling, a confederate asked to experimenter “Can I donate all of the money that I got for attending the experiment?”

Experimenter answered “Sure”.

문서에서 비영리 - S-Space - 서울대학교 (페이지 60-64)

관련 문서