Self-efficacy, Peer Pressure and Gender as Predictors of Altruism : Current School News

Self-efficacy, Peer Pressure and Gender as Predictors of Altruism among Adolescents

Filed in Current Projects, Psychology ProJect Topics by on September 21, 2020

ADS! Download JAMB CBT Software Now for FREE!

Self-efficacy, Peer Pressure and Gender as Predictors of Altruism among Adolescents.

ABSTRACT  

The study investigated self-efficacy, peer pressure and gender as predictors of altruism among two hundred and eighty-eight (288) Secondary School students of Learning Field International Secondary School, Our Lady High Secondary School and In Land Doors Secondary School all in Onitsha, Anambra State. They consisted of one hundred and fifty-six (156) males and one hundred and thirty-two females aged 12-17 years with mean age of 14.5 years.

Three instruments were used in this study: General Self-efficacy scale, Peer Pressure Inventory and Altruism Scale. The purpose of the study was to examine whether self-efficacy, peer pressure and gender have predictive ability over altruism. It was hypothesized that: Self-efficacy would not significantly predict altruism among adolescents. Peer pressure would not significantly predict altruism among adolescents. Gender differences would not significantly predict altruism among adolescents.

To test the hypotheses, linear regression analysis was used for data analysis and showed a significant effect of one predictor variable: Self-efficacy (b = 1.11, p<.001) and no significant effect of the other predictor variables: peer pressure and gender on altruism, the dependent variable. The result of the findings showed that self-efficacy is a statistically significant predictor of altruism among secondary school students of Learning Field International Secondary School, Our Lady High Secondary School and In Land Doors Secondary School all in Onitsha, Anambra State.

INTRODUCTION  

Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of other. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often observed as the Golden Rule of Ethics. Some newer philosophies (egoism) have criticized the concept, that there is no moral obligation to help others. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness. Altruism is a costly activity that profits others (Schwitzgebel & Rust, 2009; Chartopadhyay, 1999). Schulz, (2011) described altruistic behaviour as an end in itself, not directed at gain emitted voluntarily and doing well.

Lamm, Batson, and Decety, (2007) saw altruistic behaviour as a donor’s attempt to maximize the pleasure of the recipient. Altruism, according to Bassey and Eze (2005), has been given different names such as helping behaviour, pro-social and epimelectic behaviour and like some other psychological concepts; its definition has remained controversial and equivocal. However, Baron and Byrne (2000) referred to altruism as the possession of behaviour that entails an unselfish concern for the welfare of others but has no obvious benefit for the person who carries out the action and sometimes even involves risks.

 Epimelectic behaviour means altruism – a theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action (Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, & Ortiz, 2007). In the same vein, Colman (2003) explained that altruism 12 implies behaviour that benefit another individual or other individuals in terms of direct advantages or chances of survival and reproduction at some cost to the benefactor. In his contribution, Redzo and Paul, (2011) asserted that a person, who exhibits altruism, does not expect a reward in return. 

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. R. (1987). Psychological testing and assessments (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Bameister, R. F., Chesner, S. P., Sender, P. S., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Who’s incharge here:
Group leaders do lend helping emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 14, 17-22.

Bandiera, A., Lange, A., List, J., & Price, M. (2005) Social preferences and the response to
incentives: evidence from personnel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (3)
917-62

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 5 (1), 41-51.

Baron, R., & Byrne, D. (2000). Social Psychology. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from,
http//jrsecience.wepm-uohio.Ed/.

Bassey, E. C., & Eze, V. C. (2005). The influence of number of bystanders, gender and
locus of control on helping behaviour. Nigerian Journal of Psychological Research.
4, 36-40.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question. Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma
II: reassessment. Biology and philosophy, 26, 251-260.

Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An
additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 65-74.

CSN Team.

Join Over 5 Million Subscribers Today!


=> FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM | FACEBOOK & TWITTER FOR LATEST UPDATE

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: