In-Group Out-Group Bias In Prosocial Behavior

Running Head: INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 1

In-Group/Out-Group Bias in Prosocial Behavior

Name

Institution Affiliation

INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 2

Numbers of pieces of research and their findings have attested that there exist a positive

influence on the prosocial behavior which has been contributed by the tendency of the people to

act voluntarily. According to Caprara & Patrizia (2007), a conceptual model which analyze self-

efficacy value and transcendence have been seen to promote the prosocial behavior of in-group

and out-group members in the society. On the same note, Einolf (2008), supports a conceptual

framework that is concerned with 14 distinct prosocial behaviors. He offers a correlation that

substantiates the effect of in-group and out-group on the behavior and argues that positive

behavior can be more intense for members of the same group. The strong correlation is evident

in most people's actions that play a vital role in correcting the behavioral perception.

Addressing the various aspects that are core in predicting the way a member is certain

group is likely to behave, Eisenberg (2007) present a list of components showing the relation

between members of the same group such as personal distress, sympathy, and empathy.

Understanding these aspects enables the individuals in various groups to respond to behaviors

that are displayed by different members or different groups. Also, Ellis & Lynne (2007)

examines a moderation that can present biasedness among peer if the group that is engaging is

composed of members that are deviant and aggressive. In his study, it was evident that the

influence of behavior is not uniform and in most cases depends on the group status.

Finkelstein M. (2009) and Gebauer, et al., (2008), present a study that seems to

incorporate the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation that could investigate the dispositional factors

that have contributed significantly to behavioral disparity and biasedness. Intrinsic motivation

was seen to bring the people together through the way they behave while the extrinsic motivation

was responsible for bringing different groups together. Besides the authors agree on the model

that ensures pleasure and pressure that imminently cause the biases for the various classes of

INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 3

people where self-esteem, self-actualization, and life satisfaction diverse significantly among

different people.

Furthermore, different levels of motivation are important in influencing the prosocial

behavior Grant (2008). Grant also provide a consciously stipulated model to solve intrinsic or

extrinsic motivation has influenced the behavioral disparity that exists by using the determination

theory that can predict the outcomes when an individual behave. On the other hand, research

conducted by Gretemeyer (2009) has revealed that other than the extrinsic form of motivation,

communication is the most powerful tool in addressing behavioral changes among the in-group

and out-group members since, in most cases, intrinsic motivation might be overridden by

subjectivity.

Hirschberger (2008) argues that mortality salience can contribute significantly to the

prosocial behavior. This raises the central methodological problem. However, when an

individual’s behavior interferes with the group’s principles and does not follow what other

members do, it may lead to biases among themselves. By understanding the timelessness of

one’s life, one can act positively and behave favorably in the society and among members of the

same group. Besides, the objectivity of behavior cannot just be achieved through an open forum

with a group that lacks a concession, but generativists have to exist to fructify the behavioral

interactions (Hofer et al., 2008).

Various parameters exist that can be used to measure the behavior in prosocial and

antisocial setups. Positive responses according to Kavussanu & Ian (2009), can be measured in

the individual behavior by tracking the behavioral response when the subject is faced by varying

forces that can significantly alter how the person behave. On the hand, antisocial behavior is the

INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 4

measure of the negative attributes that an individual has based on the environment in which the

subject is taken through to identify behavioral response (Marsh, et al., 2007).

In their work, Mikulincer & Philip (2007) analysis a conceptualization sense of an

attachment of an inner source of factors that could raise behavioral biasedness. They argue that

an individual could be driven by the conceptual inner sense of being attached to another person

that would make them behavior in a particular manner. However, if a person has no inner

attachment to the others, they practice discriminative approach towards them. In support of

Milkulince and Philips theory, Michie (2009) attributes the behavior of an organizational leader

to be reliant on subjects they manage in the organization. They positively, morally, and

emotionally influence the way the employees behave while at the same time to find themselves

learning and adopting various behavioral aspects from the employees.

In conclusions, Ahmed (2007) argues that education can offer a very significant change

in the pro-social behavior hence the major methodological problem which makes analysis

complicated. He indicates that when the subject whose behavior is being examined is taken

through a school system, either formal or informal, they will be seen to behavior in a different

way as compared to those that have not gone through any education system. For example, a

relatively educated subject will tend to behave in a prosocial manner while those that have not

acquired any education will tend to behave antisocially. A gap exists in the pieces of research

that have been conducted before because they fail to address the systematic examination on how

the behavior can be influenced by different levels of motivations and groups. Furthermore, there

exist no concession on the ultimate trend of behavior when an individual is subjected to various

behavior changing conditions.

INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 5

References

Ahmed, A. (2007). “Can education affect pro-social behavior? Cops, economists and humanists

in social dilemmas.” International Journal of Social Economics 35(4):298-307.

Caprara, G. & Patrizia, S. (2007). “Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self-efficacy

beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages.” Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology 26(2):218-239.

Einolf, J. (2008). “Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results

using survey data.” Social Science Research 37(4):1267-1279.

Eisenberg, N. (2007). “Empathy-related responding and prosocial behavior.” Pp 71-80

in Novartis Foundation Symposia. Vol. 278, Empathy and Fairness, edited by Greg Bock

and Jamie Good. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ellis, E., & Lynne Z. (2007). “Peer group status as a moderator of group influence on children’s

deviant, aggressive and prosocial behavior.” Child Development 78(4):1240-1254.

Finkelstein M. (2009). “Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer

process.” Personality and Individual Differences 46(5-6):653-658.

Gebauer, E., Michael, R., Philip B., & Gregory R. (2008). “Pleasure and pressure based prosocial

motivation: Divergent relations to subjective well-being.” Journal of Research in

Personality 42(2):399-420.

Grant, M. (2008). “Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in

predicting persistence, performance, and productivity.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 93(1):48-58.

INTERGROUP PROSOCIALITY 6

Gretemeyer. T. (2009). “Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial thoughts, affect, and

behavior.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(1):186-190.

Hirschberger, G., Tsachi. E., & Shaul A. (2008). “The self-protective altruist: Terror

management and the ambivalent nature of prosocial behavior.” Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 34(5):666-678.

Hofer, J., Holger, B., Athanasios, C., Joscha K., & Domingo C. (2008). “Concern for

generativity and its relation to implicit pro-social power motivation, generative goals, and

satisfaction with life: A cross-cultural investigation.” Journal of Personality 76(1):1-30

Kavussanu, M., & Ian D. (2009). “The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale.” Journal

of Sport & Exercise Psychology 31(1):97-117.

Marsh, A., Nalini A., & Megan N. (2007). “Accurate identification of fear facial expression

predicts prosocial behavior.” Emotion 7(2):239-251.

Mikulincer, M., & Philip R. (2007). “Boosting attachment security to develop mental health,

prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance.” Psychological Inquiry 18(3):139-156.

Michie, S. (2009). “Pride and gratitude: How positive emotions influence the prosocial behaviors

of organizational leaders.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 15(4):393-

403.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

In-Group Out-Group Bias in Prosocial Behavior

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams