4,*.I o

r:

Altruism or Reciprocity: Sharing Behaviorin Israeli Kindergarten Children

S. B. Drernan .and Charles W. Greenbaum

Hebrea Unioersity of lerusalem

Dn-uueN, S. 8., and Gnrrxreuu, Crranlrs \\. Altruism or Reciprocity: Sharing Behaaior inlsraeli Kindergarten Children Cnrr-o Dsvnloprmxr, L973, 44, 6I-68. i20 preschool children.grouped by social class, ethnicity, and sex, s'ere asked to share candies with classmates rvhohad not received candies, in either a reciprocilv or a nonreciprocifv situation. Middle-class boys,as predicted, responded less generously in a situation in rvhich the recipient would not lororvu,ho gave the gift (nonreciprocitv) than in a situation in rvhich the recipient u,ould knorv(reciprocity), Other groups rvere not affected b1'the reciprocity variation. This rvas attributedto the tendency of middle-class in&viduals, particularly maIes, to relv on reciprocity norms inprosocial transactions. A content analvsis of reasoru for sharing shorved a clear relation betrveenverbal expressions of altruism and actual altruistic behavior. Children giving altruistic answerscontributed the largest amount. It is suggested that altruism is a multidimerisional concept andthat in the young child its expression may in part reflect differing ler.e1s of cognitive develop-ment.

Berkowitz and his co-workers (Berkowitz& Daniels 1963, 1964; Daniels & Berkowitz1963; Goranson & Berkowitz 1966), on thebasis of research they have conducted, suggestthat many people in our society possess a'iocial responsibility norm" through whichthey learn that it is proper and desirable toaid those who are dependent upon them. Suchsocially responsible actions may be performedwithout conscious anticipation of reciprocatedrewards.

In those studies which have specificallyvaried social class (e.g., Berkowitz & Friedman1967; Muir & Weinstein 1962), it has beendemonstrated that middle-class people, par-ticularly those with a ffnancial occupationalhistory, are more influenced by reciprocityconsiderations in their prosocial behavior thanlower-class people, who are more influencedby norms of social responsibility. Gouldner(1960) first described the reciprocity normwhich makes the minimal demands that: (1)people should help those who have helpedthem, and (2) people should not injure thosewho have helped them. The middle class, par-

ticularly the entrepreneurial segment, may ffndthe reciprocity norm more amenable to theprofit-andJoss orientation characteristic of theirday-to-day transactions. Lower-class peopleperhaps rely more on the norm of social re-sponsibility because it is compatible with con-siderations of mutual aid and family-centeredexchange patterns typical of this grbup.

There are relativelv few studies on socialclass difierences in proiocial behavior of chil-dren. Research by Madsen (1967, experiment1) and Ugurel-Semin (1952) suggests greaterreliance on the social responsibility norrn inlower- as compared with middle-class childreninsofar as they contribute more to a dependentrecipient. A study by Leventhal and Anderson(1970) found that middle-class boys tend torely on the reciprocity norm in a task in whichsharing was possible. None of these studies,however, provides proof of a differential socialclass reliance on the norm of reciprocity.

There is rbsearch evidence on sex differ-ences (Berkowitz 1969; Berkowitz & Daniels1963; Schopler 7967; Schopler & Bateson 1965;

This article is based on a thesis submitted by the ffrst author in partial fulffllment of .theM.A. degree in psychology at The Hebrew University under the supervision of the secondauthor, The authors would like to thank Abraham Weber for his reliable assistance in boththe ffeld work and statistical analysis involved in the proiect, and Shalom Schwartz for hiscritical reading of an earlier versioi of the manuscript. fhJ research was supported by a grantfrom the JamJs Manhall Fri:rd. Author Greenbaum"s address: Departunent 6f r.ychoiogy,"TheHebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Lchild Degelalffient, 197j, 44, 61-68. @ 1973 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. Allrights reserved.l

62 Child Development

Walker & Heyns 1962) to indicate that males,particularly middle-class males, tend to adhereto reciprocity in their prosocial behaviors, whilefemales rely more on the norm of social re-sponsibility.

With regard to children's prosocial behav-ior, most of the studies reviewed by Krebs(1970) found no sex differences. 6f thosestudies which speciffcally measured reliance onreciprocity, Madsen (1967, experiment 1),studying Mexican children, and Staub andSherk (1970) found no significant sex differ-ences, while Leventhal and Anderson (1970)and Floyd (1964) obtained contradictory re-sults. The infuence of sex on childrens reci-procityJike behavior thus remains equivocal.

Research conducted on ethnic differenceshas indicated no clear racial or ethnic differ-ences in altruistic behaoior (Nelson & Madsen1969; Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin 1969; Wispe& Freshley 1971). Katz, Gurevitch, Danet, andPeled (1969), in a study of oerbal expressionsof altruism, found that Israeli respondents ofMiddle Eastern or North African (non-West-em) origin were more likely to appeal to thealtruism of a customs official when making arequest than were those of Western or Euro-pean origin, who appealed to more impersonalno[ns.

In the present study we intend to observesharing behavior in kindergarten children. Inview of their importance as indieated by prev-ious studies, socioeconomic class (SES), sex,ethnicity, and reciprocity conditions will besystematically varied in an attempt to isolatethe effect of these factors on sharing. The fol-lowing trends are predieted:

1. Middle-class males will be more gen-erous in a reciprocity than a nonreciprocitysituation because of the tendency of this groupto engage in social intercourse on this basis.

2. Because of the tendency for females torely more on the norm of social responsibility,middle-class females should be relativelv unaf-fected by reciprocity.

3. Because they deal with each other inmutual-aid terms of social responsibility, lower-class children, regardless of sex, will be rela-tively unafiected by reciprocity.

4. No ethnic differences are expected inaltruistic behaaior as expressed in the act ofsharing. In Iight otKatz et al.'s (1960) ffnding,however, it is predicted that Israeli ]ewish chil-dren of Middle Eastern or North African (MN)origin will appeal more to oerbal norms of. al-truistic behavior than those of Westem or Euro-pean (WE) origin,

Method

SubiectsSubjects were chosen from the compulsory

kindergarten population of greater Jerusalem.The compulsory kindergarten is attended by allffve-year-olds in Israel. Our sample consistedof 120 children divided into the followingmajor subgroups: (1) WE children of middle-class origins: N : 40 (20 males and 20 fe-males), average age 5 years, 9.5 months; (2)MN children of middle-class origins: N : 40(20 males and 20 females), average age 5years, 8.3 months; (3) MN children of lower-class origins: N : 40 (20 males and 20 fe-males), average age 5 years, 10.5 months; Theage range of the total sample extended from5 years, 3 months to 6 years, 5 months.

With the aid of the Statistical Abstract ofIsrael (Central Bureau of Statistics 1961), wedivided Jemsalem into areas of low and mid-dle SES according to the prevalence of modernsanitation facilities in a particular area. Kin-dergartens were then selected which weresituated in appropriate SES areas. Area char-acteristics were considered suitable criteria forSES stratification in that residential areas inIsrael tend to be homogeneous in respect todemographic characteristics such as occupa-tional and educational levels. A separate anal-ysis of subjects in terms of fathers' occupa-tional status proved this assumption to betrue.1

Lower-class WE Ss were missing from thedesign because no appropriate sample of suchSs could be found. All Ss in the study werechosen so as to be drawn from the majoritygroup in primarily (at least 70la) uni-ethnickindergartens. This was done in order to obtainchildren whose social learning opportunitiescame primarily from peers of similar back-ground. No kindergartens of primarily WE

1 Thus, while M out of 40 lower-class Ss' fathers were unskilled laborers, not one un-skilled laborer was located in the middle-class WE and MN groups. Analysis of the six lower-class Ss whose fathers were of higher occupational standing showed that their behavior wassimilar to that of the total low SES grorrp.- They contributid an average of 3.33 candies inthe reciprocity condition and 3.5 candies-in the nonreciprocity con&tion as compared with3.45 and 3,6, respectively, in the lower-class group as a whole.

lower-ciass oligin exist in lerusalem or itssurroundings, and very ferv such children livein the area. As for other cities, a iarge pro-portion of WE lower-class children ire -ofi-

spring of relatively recent immigrants, ,uvhich

uould lead to lack of validity of-thc compari-son between such a group and the otherchildleir in our sample. Pooling WE childrenfrom prirnarilv MN liindei:garteis aiso in..,olvesgrave probiems of comparabilitv for reasonsmentioned earlier. The preseni design did per--mit comparison of eth.nic differences withiirthemiddle class and compar.ison of social classdi$erences lyithin the MN sarnple.

Procedure

- Tl]9 erperiment rvas designed to assessthe rvillingness of children to-sharc candiesunder trvo conditions: (1) rvhen the donor rvass-upposedll, to be identified to tl-re recipient-the douor-known condition; (2) rvhen the do-nol \vils to be anont'rnous to thc rccipicnt-tlre donrrr -anorr,-.rri condition.

The former condition created tire settingfor reciprocitv in that tlrc. possibility existedthat the donor could be leciprocated, sincethe- recipient rvould supposedlv' be informedo[ his :renic. Erch cirild tvas qi.,en tt-o bags:one uarked rvith red, rvlich i'ontained sevincanCies, and another n.iar*ed rvith green, whichr:',as empty. An odd number of ca:'rdies was al-located in order to enabie analysis of clonationsin terms of generous (four or miire) ,"'elsusnongenerous (three or fewer.) donations. Chii-dren rvere called inclividually to E's table(usuallv situated in the ror.ridor of tire kinder-garten), ancl rvere instructed as follovi,s: "Lookfname of cirild], there are two bags in frontof vou, one marked with red, and one ll,ithgreen. Take a look in the bag rnarked r.vith red;do you sec what is inside-P" Child answers."l-hat's light. r'arrdies. and thel.are l.ourslCount thern." The child counts. "How "nrairy

are there?'' Child arrsu'ers. E then adds: ''O.K..no\\' )ou r,an do w]raterer vou likr-, with vour.randies. Horvever, I wanted to tell vou thatthere are childr"err sitting in the kindelgartenrlho dicin't get candies an-d u,on't have a chanceto pirr), this gamc. Ii yoir rvish, vou can [ake:is miiny carrdies as you rvant oui of 1'orrr. bagand put tliem in the bag rrrarked u.iih er.ecrr.Aftelr,r'ards I'll take the bag and girr. it toairotlier boy [-girl,- if the dorior is a

"girl] who

didn't qet candies."

E :rp erim e n! aI C o n ditio ns

- -Donor-knou;n (reci,proaity'; condition.-In this condition E said: "If vo., put candiesin the brrg marked ra.,ith green, I'11 iake it later

Dreman and Greerabaum 6g

and gjve it to anotlier boy [girl] a;nd I'll tellhint that tlou lE emphasiies the name of thesubjectl gave him caridies."

D on or--anonymous ( nonre ciprocity ) condi-tion.-In this condition E said: "If

-vou put

candies in the bag marked rvith green'l'Il tikeit :ind later- give it to another boy lgirll buihe tton't knr.xt aho gaae him the'caidies be-cause I uoon'i tell him."

- - a{ft_er the experimental manipuiation, Eadded that he rvouid not look rvhe'n S dividedthe candies and would never knou. horv manycandies S had r:ontributed, since he would tak'ethe bag to the recipient rvithout looking inside.Tlris instrut.tion aitcmpted io control for com-pliance and the tendencv foi Ss to act in asociaily desirable manr,.,i to please E. BeforeS ellocated the candies, E said: (1) "Will thechild lvhc geis the candies knorv you havedonated them?" (2) "Wili I see or ever knorvhor.v many candies you'l;e given?"

If S answered correctly, S proceeded todivide, and r.vhen he finished E asked theabove two questions lgain and added: (3)"\Vho has more candies, vou or the otherr.hild?" ( 4) "Is tlrt're an1, reasor t rvhv yourvanted the other child to have the candies?"

lt should be noted that Ss lvere neverasked in question 3 horv ma!l)- cf,ndi(-s t]reyhad contlihuted, but rather rvho lred morecandies. There were a ferv Ss rvho tried toshow E how many candies thev had contrib-uted. hut thev werle dissuaded by E, rvho toldthem that he-merely rvanted to (now rvho hadmore,

The S was then told that he rvould begiven his bag of candies at the close of thekindergarten dav and was requested not to re-'late to" other Jhildren what- had transoired.Thc experirnent was conducted in the'earlyrnorning _when the children were engaged inolganized activity. This was an attempt tocapitalize on a period of minimal commu'nica-tion between children, as opposed to the freepla1, period. The donors weie given their bagsat the close of the sehool day, and the candiesin the green bags were &stributed equally toall the remaining children.

Each of the two Es examined half thechildren in each subgroup in order to deter-mine experimenter effects on the main variablesof the study. Each S was run in only onecondition. The experiment u.as a partially com-plete 25 factorial design (SES X sex k eth-nicity X condition X ti-.ster). Of 32 possible

64 Child Development

TABLE 1

Susyrcm, Gnoupno sy SocrAr Cmss arvo Snx, Marnvc GrNrnous vrnsus NorcBNpnous Cuorcrs nrDomoR-KNowN rinnsus Doron-ANoNYMous Colvorrrors (ff: 120)

Mmor"n Class Lowrn Cr,nss

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Cowor:ros NG NGG NG NG

6060

465l

4646

8727t3

21811 9

i::72713ou J5 0)

25862.5 .+0

27 X5

o/-.t .t|-l1332.5

DA..DK ..

Total .o/_lu .....

Norr.-G : generous, NG = uongeaerous, DA = donor monymous, DK : donor known

cells, eight were not included in the designbecause of the absence of lower-class WE Ss.

The two dependent variables studiedwere: (1) behavior-the number of candiesshared, and (2) verbal erpres5i6n5-1hs 164-

sons offered for sharing.

Background information was obtained onthe occunitional and educaUonal status of Ss'

fathers ,', *ell as the number of children intheir families. The relation of these factors tosharing behavior and expressed verbal eontentwas examined.

Results

Only one child was left out for respondingincorrectiv to the question: "Will tlie childwho gets'the candiei lorow you have donatedthem?Y' Nineteen out of 120 subjects answeredincorrectly to the question: "Who has morecandies, you or the other child?" Sixteen ofthese indicated that they had received theIarger portion or did not know who was therecipient of the larger portion when, in fact,they had kept less for themselves. Since 13 ofthese 16 children donated four candies, it mayhave been relatively easy for them to reducecognitive discomfort created by giving uP morethan half of their allotment by distortion ofthe amount donated.

As for the attempt to control for compli-ance to E by asking: "Will I knou' oI everLnow hou manv car,aies vou've given?" 111 I'!subjects responded in tlre neqative. Trvo anal-yses of variarrce r'vere aiso conducted to testior possible experimentel effects on the mairivaliables of the present studr'. There were nosigni{lcant main or interaction effects for eitherSES x condition X tester or ser X conditionX tester.

The majority (75 children) donated eitirertliree or four candies. The mean numbel ofcandies given fcr the entile sarnple was 3,;12

i5D : L+11. tt thus seems Iikelf ilr.rt mostSs debated helrvecn giving either thrce (less

than half) or four (more than half) of their'candies.

Table I reveals that middle-clirss bovs

m:lde more generous choices in the donor-knoivn (recipiocity) than in the clonor-anony-mous condition and more nongenerous choices

in the donor-anonymous than in the donc-rr-

kncu,n condition (7,2 g'itir Yates's correclion: 1.29, p < "01). \'Iiddle-class giris, lorver-ciass girls, and lorvei-class boys were not sig-

riiflcaritlv alTected by tire different reciprocityconditioirs. These flndings are in accoldartcex'ith oul main pledictions.

\1:ith eihnicitr' ]reld constant, there are

TAtsLE 2

Mmnr-n-Cless Sunlrcrs, Gnoupro nv Enrrtcmrr Ann Srx, MaxDcc Gtxtnotrs vnnsus NosclNERoiISCrrorcrs nv l)oxon-r.ryolvN vnRSUs Domot-eNoNvltous ccNDraro\s t-Y - S0)

WE Mroor-B Cr-nss IlN Mmoln Cr,rss

Boys Girls Boys Girls

CoNortror.r NGGG NG NG Torar

404646

01055

463?

28()41-i I 127.i 40 60

81271354A 60 35 65 25 ii

DADK

G

NG G

similar SES and sex differences (see tables 1,2), while MN middle-class boys mademore generous choices in the dorior-knownthan in the donor-anonymous condition andcrore nongenerous choices in the donor-anony-mous than in donor-known condition (X, :4.27,_7t S .05_) the lower-class MN bofi didnpt" Neither the lower- nor middle-clajs MNgirls' generous choices were signiffcantly in-fluenced by the difierent reciprocr:ty condiiions.

In order to examine for ethnic differencesin sharing, we compared middle-class WE andMN children. Both MN and WE middle-classboys we-re_ influerrced by the reciprocity condi-tions, while neither t]re MN nof WE-middle-class girls were signiffcantly affected (see tablet\

A 2 X 2 x 2 analysis of variance (so-cial class X sex X condition) on the ,r,r*betof ca_ndies given generally supported &e abovetrends: the condition-by-sei- interaction ap-roaching statistical signiffcance, F (l,lll) :-2.9q, p S .09, with boys giving more candiesin the donor-known thin in th6 donor-anonv-mous condition.

While both MN and WE middle-classboys were infuenced by the reciprocity condi-tions, this tendency only reache-d signiffcancein the MN group (p < .05). In thE middle-class group as a whole, children of nonacademicfathers made more generous choices in thereciprocity as opposed to the nonreciprocitycondition, while academic fathers' chilareirclearly did not operate on this basis (yz -3.85,p < .05).Since six out of 20 bovs ii theWE male group had academic-type fathers ascompared with only one in t-he MN group, tJretende,ncy of the WE boys to share on"thijbasismay have been diminished.

Charac{erisLic of all subgroups examined,without exception, was a g.ea-ter fercentage ofnongenerous than generous cholces, ran"ginghom 6O7o to 75%- (see tables 1, 2). Viheiwe consider, however, that the median numberof candies donated was three of a oossibleseven, and the mean was 3.32, it wodd not bereasonable.to imply that Ss in the present studywere seifish.

Occupational levels of the fathers wereranked from high to low as follows: academi-cally based professions and white-collar work-ers, skilled workers, and unskilled workers.Educational Ievels of fathers were grosslvranked as university educated, or rror,ioi.r"i-

Dreman and Greenbaum 65

sity educated. Two judges made independentrankings, and an interjudge agreement of9O.8% was obtained for botli the oecupationaland educational rankings. Correlation-^s werecomputed between patemal occupational level,paternal educaUona-i level, numb.-er of siblinesin the donor's family, and number of candiEscontributed. No sigrrificant correlations werefound betwe"r, u.ri of the above three vari-ables and donations.

A content analysis was undertaken of thereasons offered for iharing. This is based on asample of facets from a Iacet analysis ( Gutt-man 1958) applied in this instance to the actof.sharing. The mapping sentence for this anal-ysrs 1s:

We share with others because we (A : freed,omof choi.ce):(A1 : want to share)

_ (A2 : feel obliged to share)because of (B : direc-tness of interpersonal influ-ence):

(Bl : intrapersonal motives)( 82 : society's norms )(B3 : friendship)(B4 : intemersonal debt or future nrofft)

and the-subiecti,r" p,,Tros" of the act'of sharing is(C : obiect of reward.):

(Cl : reward lprevention of prrni5fimsn1] 1eother).

(C2 :- -reward [prevention of punishment] to

self ).'

The answers t}le children gave were ena-lyzed without hrowledge of a-etual conkibu-tions. The_{ollowing four categories of analysiscovered all classiffable responses of the child(letters and numbers in p-arentheses refer tothe facets in the mappinf sentence):

Altruism (A1BlC1).-The donor wantsthe^recipient to be happy: no interpersonalprofi_t or loss is supposedly involved. For ex-ample: ''I_gave so he'll be happy''; "I gave sohe won't be sad."

Social responsibi.lity ( A2B2C2) .-The do-nor feels obligated to give to tle dependentrecipient because of prevailing sociaf norms,For example: "If I don't give, [e won't have";"It's nice to give to classmates."

Ingroup (A2B3C2).---The donor feelsobligated to help people he likes because as-sumedly he wanis -to

pierpetuate the friendshipand/or repay friends for past services rendered.For example: "I like hiir"; "He's a friend ofmine."

Reciprocity (A2B4C2) .-qhe donor feels

66 Child Development

TABLE 3

Mrlrv Nulrsnn or C.cNDlEs Doxerm ls l FurvcrroNor Expnrssro Roesons ron Ssennrrc (lV- 120)

these two groups are considered. These find-ings are in agreement with Katz et al.'s ( 1969)ffn-ding that Israelis of Middle Easterrr or NorthAfrican origins appeal more to altruistic normsthan those of Westem or European origins. -

Discussion

In the present study, middle-class boyswere affected by the different reciprocity co_n-

ditions, while this was not apparent in middle-class giris or lower-class boys or girls. Nosigni-ffcant ethnic differences were found be-tween the WE and MN middle-class children.In view of these ffrdings and the research re-viewed on social class, ethnic. and sex differ-ences, it may be possible that children of age5-6 are imititing parental patterrrs of prosocialbehavior.

Berkowitz and Friedman (1967) foundthat middle-class subjects whose families havenonffnancial occupational backgrounds are less

infuenced by reciprocity in a helping situationthan those *ith "6"trepieneurial"-fathers. Thisaccords with the present finding that the gen-erosity of donations of children of noncom-mercially oriented academics is less influencedby reciprocity conditions than that of othermiddle-61ass children whose parents have morecommercially oriented backgrounds.

Verbal and Behaoioral Expressions of AltruismThe verbal and behavioral expressions of

generositv reported in the presen't study areimenable to'a developmentil analysis similarto that presented by'Ugurel-Semin (1952).AltruistiC answers such as, "I gave so he'll behuppy," or blind adherence to social respon-sibllity norns as expressed in answers such as,

"The divider must always give more," mayrefect less sophisticated levels of cognitivedevelopment. For example, "altmism'l *?yreally ieflect the stage o-f egocentric tloughtwhere the child cannot detach his own im-mediate desiles from those of the recipient'This stage may be refected in the results of 'our study in which the majority of childrenmade nongenerous choices (i.e.,-gave three orfewer can-dies), yet gave altrrristic or social -

responsibility iusiiffcaiions for sharing withothers. Ingroup and reciprocity considerations,in contrait, may reflect more sophisticatedlevels in that the child s moral judgment

CategorySample

Size

MeanNo. of

CandiesDonated

AltruismSocial responsibi[ty ..... : :

fngroupReciprocityNo answer or unclassified ..

Total .

2t55L7

5

42

3.813.432.762.403.42

120

obligated to help because of immediate servicesrendered or the possibility of future interper-sonal reward (of punishment). For exam-ple,"I gave to him because he doesnt aggraiateme"; "I gave to him so he'll play with me."

All codeable responses weie classiffedinto these four-categorGs by two independentjudges; interjudge agreement was 96.6/6.If arelation exists between verbal and behavioralexpressions of altmism, then the mean numberof candies contributed in each successive con-tent category from altruism to reciprocityshould decrease. Table 3 reveals that this prd-diction was substantiated. The orobabiliw ofpredicting by chance the corre6t order 'of aseries of four elements each with an equalprobability of occurrence is less than .05., Asigniffcant correlation (r : .32, p ( .01) wasalso found between verbal and Lehavioral ex-pressions of altruism.

The higher the occupational level of thefather, the riore reciprocitlr-based a S's answertended to be (r :'.25,'p < .OS).Similarly,the higher the paternal educational level, themore children tended to render reciprocity-based answers (r : .21,p 1.10). In c-ontrait,the greater the numbei of children in thedonort family, the less reciprocity-based werethe reasons oilered for sharing Q I - .3Z, p <.01).

It was found that 27.5% of the MNmiddle-class children's expressed reasons forsharing were altruistic as opposed to onlyL2.5% of the WE middle-class childreri's.Highly similar proportions are found when onlychildren of nonacademic fathers in both of

2 The probability of predicting this particular order is given by considering the tqtalnumber of permutations in a serieiof four each with an equal chance of occurrence. Thisprobability is la! and p : .042.

moves beyond the sphere of the present andbegins to take into account prioi debts andfuture rewards.

^ -_ These hypotheses receive support in theffnding that while 72/6 of Ss who renderedclassiffable reasons for sharing gave either al-truistic or social responsibility justifications,onTy 23/6 gave ingroup and 5% gave reci-procity iustiffcations. Since* our subjects areo-nly 5;6 years of age, it would not be expectedthat their moral judgments would yet ieflectthe more sophisticated conceptualization ex-pressed in the principles of ingroup and reci-procity. Our ffndings that occupational statusis directly related to verbal expressions of reci-procity (children of academic fathers givingthe most reciprocity-based answers and chil-dren of unskilled workers, the least) also sug-gests that reciprocity at least on the verbillevel refects more advanced levels of cognitivedevelopment.

It should be noted tlat t]le above resultstands in contrast with the ff"di"g that aca-demic children's acfual sharing Eehavior isrelatively unaffected by a reciprocity manipu-lation. It must be remembered. however, thatverbal and behavioral measures of altruism orre_ciprocily' need not necessarily be related.The problem of the relation between verbaland behavioral measures of per{ormance iscommon to other areas of developmental re-seareh and has been discussed

- bv piaset(1926), Charlesworth (I9G9), and kohlbErg( 1e64).

Ugurel-Semin (1952), for example, foundthat the verbal norm of "deeper and enlareedreciprocity," which only estiblished itself" atage 10, corresponded witl increasing amountsof generous behavior in a sharing sit"uation. Incontrast, in the present study generous be1havior was found fo be inverselv rElut"d to ver-'bal- expressions of reciprocity.' Ugurel-Semin'sffnding-s together with -ours

iugge"st that rela-tions between actual sharing-lehavior andVerbal just-iffcations for sharing are complexand may gha_nge with age or c-ognitive de-vel-opment. Neither behavioral or veibal measures;hould be taken as "the" measure of generositv.Instead both may be considered as jperation'alindicators of the influence of int6mersonalsituations and/or a given level of deveiopmenton the generosity oJ the child, viewed as amultidimensional construct.

While we s_uggest some developmentalcontributions in the ontogeny of prosocial be-

Dreman and Greenbaum 67

havior, studies by Berkowitz and Friedman(1967), Rosenhan (1967), Rosenhan andWhite (1967), and Tomkins (1965) indicatethat social learning processes such as imitationplay a major role in the acquisition of suchbehaviors.

In the present study rve systematicall'yvaried the do-nor and the iharing iituatiol anhexanrined-sharing behavior and verbal expres-sions of altruism. Further research should- alsobe directed to variation of additional relevantjndependent variitbles such as the r.ecipientand the resources shared, as u-ell as obseilingother tvpes of prosocial behavior. ,.r"h u,

"oloperation. In light of the multidimensionalnature of the prosocial act, it rvould be ven-turesome to make extensive generalizations onthe basis of the present findi"ngs alor-re. Thereis recent_evidence, for eran'rple. (piliavin et al.1969; Schopler and Bateson 1g651 \\'ispe andFreshlev 1971) that rvhen tlre ,eror.ce cr,,-tributed involves physical efiort, males aremore socially lesponsible than fentriles. Fur.-ther, it is suggested that future studies beconducted at diferent age levels to eraminefor developmental trends- in both beliavioraland verbal expressions of altruism.

References

Berkorvitz, L. Resistance to improper dependencvrelationships. lournal of Experimeniat SociilPsychology, 1969, 5, 2BS-291.

Berkou,itz, L., & Daniels, L. R. Responsibilitvand dependency. Iournal of Abnormal andSocial P,sychoktgy, t963, 66, 27J36.

Berkou'itz, L., & Daniels, L. R. Afiecting the sa-Iience oI the social responsibilitr- norm. Journalof Abnormal and. Social Psychologg, 196.1, 68,302-306.

Berkos'itz, L., & Friedman, P. Son.re social classdifferences in helping behavior. Iournal ofPersonality and Social psychology, 1967, i,.)1t oo/4 L t -Zaa.

Central Bureau of Statistics. Statistical abstract ofIsrael. No. 12. lenualem: Government press,

1961.Charlesrvorth, \V. R. The role of surprise in cog-

nitive development. In D. Elhnd & J. H.Flavell (Eds.), Studies in cognitiae deoelop-rzenf. Neg, York: Oxford University Press,1969. Pp. 257-374.

Daniels, L. R., & Berkorvitz, L. Liking and re-sponse to dependency relations. Human Re-lations, 7963, 16, 141-148.

Floyd, ]. Effects of amount of rer,vard and friend-

68 Child Development

ship status of other on the frequency of sharingin children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Minnesota, 1964,

Goranson, R. E., & Berkowitz, L. Reciprocityand responsibility reactions to prior help.Iounwl of Personality and Social Psychobgy,1966, 3, 227-232.

Gouldner, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: a

preliminary statement. American Sociolngi,calReoieu, 1960, 25, 161-178.

Guttman, L. What lies ahead for factor analysis?Educational and Psycholo$cal Measurement,1958, 18, 497-515.

Katz,, E.i Gurevitch, M.; Danet, B.; & Peled, T.Petitions and prayers: a method for thecontent analysis of persuasive appeals. SocialForces, 1969, 47, 447463.

Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character andmoral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W.Hoffman (Eds.), Reoieo of chi.ld, d.eoel.opmentresearch. Vol. t. New York: Russell SageFoundation, 1964. Pp. 383-432.

Krebs, Dennis L. Altruism: an examination ofthe concept and a review of the Iiterature.Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 25U302.

Leventhal, G. S., & Anderson, D. Self-interestand the maintenance of equity. lownal ofPersorwlity and, Social Psycholo'gy, 1970, 15,57-62.

Madsen, M. C. Cooperative and competitive mo-tiv.ation of children in three Mexica^n sub-cultures. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20,1307-1320.

Mutu, D. E., & Weinstein, E. A. The social debt:an investigation of lower class and middle,class norms of social obligations. AmericanSoci,olngi,cal Reaiew, L962, 27, 532--535.

Nelson, L., & Madsen, M. C. Cooperation andcompetition in four-year-olds as a function of

availability of reward and subculture. Deoel'opmental PsychoLogy, 1969, I, 34UU4.

Piaget, J. The lnngnge md thought of the chil.d..

New Yorkr Harcourt..Brace, 1926.Piliavin, I. M.; Rodin, j.; & Piliavin, J. A. Gtod

samaritanism: an underground phenomenon?lournal of Personality and Social Psychol,ogy,1969, 13, 289-299.

Rosenhan, D. The origins of altruisiic social anton-omy. Pinceton, N.J.: Educational TestingService. 1967.

Roseuhan, D., & White, G. M, Observation andrehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior.lm.mal of Persorwlity and Social Psycholngy,1967, 5, 42443L

Schopler, ]. Aa iavestigation of sex differences onthe influence of dependence , Sociometry, 1967,30, 50-63.

Schopler, J., & Bateson, N. The power of de-pendence. loumal of Personality and SocialPsycholngy, 1965, 2, tul:7-254.

Staub, E., & Sherk, L. Need for approval, children'ssharing behavior and reciprocity in sharing.Child, Der:eloynent, 1970, 41, tut:3-252.

Tomkins, S. S. The psychology of commituent, I:The constructive role of violence antl su$e-ringfor the individual and for his society. In S. S.

Tomkins & C. E. Izards (Eds.), Affect, cognltion and personaliry. New York: Springer,1S65.

Ugurel-Semin, R. Moral behavior and moral judge-- ment of children. Journal of Abnormal and.

Socinl Psycholngg, L952, 47, 463-474.Walker, Edward L., & Helrts, Roger W. An and-

omy for conformity. Englewood Cliffs, N.].:Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Wispe, L. G., & Freshley, H. B, Race, sex, andsympathetic h.lpi"g behavior: the broken baggaper. lourrwl af Personalitg and, Social Psy-chology, 197L, L7, 5945.