BruneCapstoneProposal

Running head: SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-SACRIFICING BEHAVIOR 1
Why Do People Help: Self-monitoring and Self-Sacrificing
Emily Brune
Dr. Sherri P. Pataki
11 December, 2015
Westminster College, PA

Self-Monitoring and Self-Sacrificing 2
Abstract
This study examined self-monitoring in 50 undergraduates to explore the relationships among
self-monitoring styles, empathy, and self-sacrificing behavior. Participants completed measures
of their self-monitoring style, social desirability, and emotional empathy. The predictions were
that high self-monitors produced more self-sacrificing behaviors in public than low self-
monitors, but not in private. All participants completed an informed consent as well as the packet
of surveys and questionnaires. The participants were then randomly assigned into public or
private conditions and then asked to complete two behavioral measures to assess their helping
behavior. The results show that high self-monitoring individuals help more due to the desire to
be liked. Another conclusion is that low self-monitoring individuals have higher empathy scores
overall compared to the high self-monitoring participants. These results can be applied to
research in the social psychology field to look at the motivations for helping behavior,
relationships, and even social anxiety.
Keywords: self-monitoring, empathy, self-sacrificing, prosocial behavior

Why do people help: Self-monitoring and Self-Sacrificing
Forming relationships and being prosocial is part of the human race’s initial primitive
instincts (Righetti, Finkenauer, & Finkel, 2013). The desire for positive social connections is a
universal need that everyone has (Beaumeister & Leary, 1995). People develop senses of
loneliness, jealousy, depression and anxiety if they let this need go unfulfilled for too long
(Beaumeister & Leary, 1995). However, living with and accommodating to people are not easy
tasks. Throughout life, it is inevitable that people cause other human beings frustration,
aggravation, stress, and heart break (Beaumeister & Leary, 1995). One of the most cherished
beliefs of human nature is that everyone has a true self. The true self concept is how you see
yourself regardless of the opinions and feelings of others (Snyder, 1987).
Throughout life, people look for a sense of personal identity. Some people look to
discover themselves in self-help sections of bookstores or by learning to respect themselves
(Snyder, 1987). Almost everyone controls their outward impressions to a certain extent. Some
examples are job interviews and parties (Snyder, 1987). Self-monitoring is a term used to
discuss the differences in which people portray themselves in different types of social situations
(Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). The purpose of this study was to examine how self-sacrificing
behavior is affected by high and low self-monitoring types.
Self-Monitoring
These behaviors can include what individuals value, create, and project for others in
different situations (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). The term monitor means to control and
regulate. Self-monitoring is monitoring of the self that individuals display in certain situations.
Self-monitoring techniques have effects on individuals’ behaviors, relationships, and ultimately
how they see the world (Snyder, 1987).

Recently, theories and research on the topic of self-monitoring have grown substantially
since its debut (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Several hundreds of articles have emerged from
this very interesting topic. The topic of self-monitoring captured the interest of social
psychologists very quickly due to the fact that self-representation is needed to create a desired
self-image in the other party’s perception of the situation (Snyder, 1987). The construct of self-
monitoring was deemed a partial resolution to two problems: the trait versus situation approach
and attitudes versus behavior controversy (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
One of the prevailing theories of self-monitoring focuses on expressive control.
Expressive control is the measure in which an individual can control and convey emotions and
attitudes in public (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). A prime example of this in modern culture is
the profession of acting. Other examples of expressive control include actions such as lying,
hiding one’s true attitudes and feelings, and displaying an altered representation of the self
Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
Expressive control plays an important role when discussing self-monitoring. Expressive
behavior controls and regulates many social interactions as well as interpersonal relationships.
The level of applicable engagement of self-monitoring differs from person to person (Gangestad
& Snyder, 2000). There are two levels of self-monitoring: high and low. The different levels of
self-monitoring have different capacities for expressive control. High self-monitors regulate
themselves in order to gain an acceptable public appearance or approval (Gangestad & Snyder,
2000). Individuals high in self- monitoring depend on their social environment and context to
fulfill their satisfaction within themselves (Mill, 1984). High self-monitors expressive control is
motivated by a desire to be liked and accepted by peers. Some people focus more and change
their behavior depending on the appropriateness of a given situation. These types of individuals

pay more attention to and care about how other people will view their behavior at any given
time. They are conscious to how they are perceived by the outside world and by their peers.
Because of this, they have the tendency to alter their behavior to what would be more accepted in
a given situation.
On the contrary, low self-monitors’ behaviors have the tendency to mirror their own
attitudes, emotions, and judgements (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). This means that the situation
has less of an effect on the behavior of these indiviudals than the individual’s inner preferences.
The expressive control of low self-monitors is not motivated by attempts to be appropriate, nor to
conform to the thoughts and feelings of others. Low self-monitors are unwilling and unable to
portray acceptable appearances (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
From this knowledge, many testable hypothesizes have appeared over the years. Some
examples are the topics of the consistency of social behavior and the links between attitudes and
actions. Another emerging topic is the notion of personal identity (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
However, the main hypothesis generated by these hypothesizes is that low self-monitors would
be more consistent in their behaviors, expressions and feelings (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
Based on this knowledge, in this study, low self-monitoring individuals were predicted to be
more consistent in self-sacrificing behavior.
Self-Monitoring and Relationship Quality
Relationships are very complicated social developments. A close relationship depends
one four domains: Symmetry, power, influence, and asymmetry (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad,
2010). The level of power asserted by an individual influences the symmetry or asymmetry of
the relationship. Power is the ability to influence the other individual to produce a certain
outcome. Symmetrical relationships are ones that the power is relatively evenly distributed

between both parties across many different activities (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad, 2010). An
asymmetrical relationship is opposite of a symmetrical relationship, in which the power is not
evenly distributed. Asymmetrical relations can lead to domestic abuse, unresolved conflicts, and
overall poor relationship quality (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad, 2010).
Throughout the whole span of the relationship, low and high self-monitors display
characteristic differences in what they seek in a mate (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad, 2010). Self-
monitoring was originally conceptualized in terms of individual differences in the ability and
motivation to regulate expressive behaviors (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad, 2010). High self-
monitoring individuals have the desire to fit social settings and roles and a concern for
interpersonal influence and status. These are important when looking at the foundation of the
relationship. However, a relationship with a balanced sense of power and belonging provides the
best outcome for all individuals (Oyamot, Snyder & Fuglestad, 2010).
Self-Monitoring and Empathy
The link between self-monitoring and empathy has not been well defined (Mill, 1984).
Empathy is a multidimensional psychological concept that has the ability to mimic identical
feelings that others may be experiencing (FeldmanHall et al., 1987). Empathetic expression
includes an understanding of another person’s perspective, as well as communicating that
understanding in a way that is situationally appropriate (Mill, 1984). Empathy is characterized
by a shared emotional base, in addition to, a balanced focus between the other person and self.
Empathy is predicted by three main factors: emotional expressiveness, emotional insight, and
role taking (Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Empathy includes a base mood, some form of personal
distress and the ability to perceive the circumstance at hand (FeldmanHall et al., 1987). An

empathetic response can be characterized by two properties: one is reducing the others’ suffering
and the other is increasing the other’s pleasure and self-worth (Toi & Baston, 1982).
In addition to their expressive control, high and low self-monitoring individuals can
differ in many ways. One main difference between self-monitoring types is verbal and non-
verbal decoding skills and expressions of empathy (Mill, 1984). Due to the social nature of high
self-monitors, they tend to be better at decoding behavior and are more accurate in determining
social cues (Mill, 1984). Low self-monitoring individuals, on the other hand, have a clear control
of their moods and attitudes. Low self-monitors, consistently convey their true attitudes and
feelings throughout each situation (Mill, 1984). Therefore, they are more consistent in their
outward emotional displays and behaviors since their attitudes and personal feelings do not
change often. The low self-monitors encounter problems when they accept the behavior of
others, specifically high self-monitors behavior at face value (Mill, 1984).
Mill (1984) did a study to discover the relationship between self-monitoring and
empathy. For the first procedure, they hypothesized that high self-monitors would interpret vocal
expression better than low self-monitors. The researchers also predicted that high self-monitors
would be better at decoding the meaning behind words (Mill, 1984). Although high self-monitors
appear to possess more of the skills of empathic expression, low self-monitors would be able to
adequately express empathy to other individuals due to different processes. Higher self-
monitoring was related to a stronger ability to interpret and analyze verbal cues (Mill, 1984). The
results from this study support Snyder’s (1974) hypothesis that high self-monitoring individuals
are more skilled at reading others affective experience and emotional states (Mill, 1984).
The second part of Mill’s study specifically focuses on self-monitoring and convincingly
expressing empathy (Mill, 1984). Mill and her colleagues (1984) predicted that high self-

monitoring individuals would convey empathy more convincingly than low self-monitoring
individuals. However, results show that low self-monitoring individuals were better at
expressing empathy (Mill, 1984). This finding indicates that low self-monitors are better
listeners. The mean score the high self-monitors was 5.69 and low self-monitors’ mean was 6.35.
Low self-monitoring individual’s genuine responsiveness may have enhanced their empathy for
other people (Mill, 1984).
Empathy and Pro-social Behavior
Pro-social behavior includes actions or behaviors that are intended to help another
individual. Pro-social behavior has four main domains: identifying other’s emotional distress,
helping or aiding, sharing or donating, and cooperating. Because of its affective nature, empathy
belongs with in the domain of identifying others feelings (Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Lower
levels of emotional expressiveness lead to lower empathy levels, and thus lower pro-social
behavior. On the other hand, high levels of emotional expressiveness, lead to increased empathy
and increased pro-social behavior (Roberts & Strayer, 1996). It is agreed upon that a moderate
level of emotional engagement is a better motive for interaction than high or low levels of
engagement.
Empathy and emotional responsiveness are predictors of pro-social behavior (Roberts &
Strayer, 1996). Higher levels of empathy predicted more pro-social engagement. (Soucie,
Lawford, & Pratt, 2012). The study performed by Soucie, Lawford, & Pratt (2012) included pro-
social and altruistically based events narrated by the participants. These researchers
demonstrated that empathic dispositions predict a sense of empathic identity and also are used
guide prosocial interactions (Soucie, Lawford, & Pratt, 2012). Empathic adolescents narrated
their life events with a greater focus toward the needs of others instead of the needs of

themselves. In their narratives, these same adolescents highlighted the importance of caring and
helping others. Adolescents who were low in empathic expression were more focused on
themselves and did not strongly mention the use of caring and helping (Soucie, Lawford, & Pratt,
2012).
Self-Sacrificing Behavior
In the 1920s, helping behavior was thought to be egotistically motivated compared to
altruistically motivated (Toi & Baston, 1982). Egotistic behavior is behavior performed for the
interest of personal gain. Altruistic behavior is behavior performed for the sole purpose of
helping the other person (Toi & Baston, 1982). Empathy towards other people is a factor in
motivating and producing altruism (FeldmanHall, Dalgleish, Evans, & Mobbs, 1987).
Self-sacrificing behavior is a form of pro-social behavior that has an expense of some sort
to the self (Mattingly and Clark, 2009). Self-sacrificing behavior requires many mental
processes. Some examples are decision making, working memory, problem solving, and self-
control. Self-control plays a main role in the tendency to self-sacrifice in relationships (Righetti,
et al., 2013). Executive Self-control can be thought of as willpower. To take this even further, it
is safe to say that self-control is just one part of executive functions or executive control. An
example of self-control in relationships is that, low self-control leads to an increase in self-
sacrificing behavior in close relationships and a lower forgiveness levels. Higher self-control is
associated with more thoughts of egotistical gains (Righetti et al., 2013)
Mattingly and Clark (2009) propose that self-sacrificing behavior due to attachment
theory and different attachment styles. For example, individuals who are more concerned about
feelings and attitudes usually produce more sacrificing behaviors (Mattingly & Clark, 2009).
Reversely, sacrificing behaviors to avoid negative consequences ultimately weakens the

Self-Monitoring and Self-Sacrificing
10
relationship between individuals (Mattingly & Clark, 2009). The researchers state that sacrificing
behavior is motivated by avoidant and approach based attachment styles.
Attachment styles are repeated patterns of behavior indicating an individual’s level of
desirability for closeness. There are four attachment patterns: secure, anxious, fearful avoidant,
and dismissive avoidant. For example, anxious attachment produces prosocial behaviors for
altruistic and selfish motives. However, fearful avoidantly attached individuals feel obligated to
engage in pro-social behaviors in their interpersonal relationships (Mattingly & Clark, 2009).
The individual’s attachment style affects all aspects of their relationships and behavior. This is
important for self-monitoring because expressive control plays a main role in attachment styles
as well. For example, people with an anxious attachment tend to be desperate to form a bond.
These individuals are frequently looking to their partner to rescue or complete them, and
therefore can have an impact of the behavior they produce in those situations. The behavior
produced is a result of self-monitoring and expressive control.
Motivation Theories
Only a hand full of motivation theories includes reasons for altruistic behavior. Empathy
is related to altruism but researchers are not sure how. The empathy-altruism hypothesis is
widely acclaimed and is used to address this problem. There is little evidence to support this
theory (Toi & Baston, 1982). The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that empathic concerns
focused on other people, such as sympathy, are better predictors of altruistic behavior than
selfish impulses. (FeldmanHall et al., 1987).
Baston’s empathy-altruism hypothesis states that personal distress promotes individuals
to be more self-focused. It also states that empathic concern-altruism relationships stems from an
evolutionary motive of helping others survive (FeldmanHall et al., 1987). It continues to say

11
empathic feelings lead to altruistic helping (Toi & Baston, 1982). This motive links the
emotions directed to other people with positive affect that promotes caring for another
(FeldmanHall et al., 1987). FeldmanHall and colleagues (1987) found that distress promotes
more altruistic behavior. These results mean that costly altruism depends on more than one
emotional state and a sufficient target (FeldmanHall et al., 1987).
Hypotheses
Each self-monitoring type has its strengths and weaknesses when it comes to expressive
control, self-control, decoding skills, and empathic concern. The differences between these two
types of individuals lead to very different behaviors and acquired skills. Low self-monitoring
individuals will be consistent in their level of self-sacrificing behavior.
Very little research has been done to discuss the relationship between self-monitoring and
self-sacrificing behavior. Predictions were that high self-monitors will produce more self-
sacrificing behavior than low self-monitors. However, it is also predicted that low self-
monitoring individuals will self-sacrifice out of pure empathy and altruism. Due to the fact that
high self-monitoring individuals are more socially inclined, it was predicted that high self-
monitoring individuals will produce more self-sacrificing behavior in public than in private.
Reversely, it was also predicted that the low self-monitoring individuals will not differ between
the public and private conditions.
Method
Design
This study was a quasi-experimental two part design. The correlational portion of this
study aimed to assess the relationships between self-monitoring and self-sacrificing behavior

12
respectfully. The second part of the study was an experimental design. The design used a 2x2
between subjects design looking at public and private condition versus a high and low self-
monitoring condition. This study attempted to prove that high self-monitors will produce more
self-sacrificing behavior than low self-monitors in public.
Figure 1. Design Model of Self-sacrificing behavior. A model representation of predicted results.
Statistical Analysis
This study proposed two independent variables. The first being audience condition,
public or private, and the second being self-monitoring type. A univariate analysis of variance
was used. I was also looking at a simple effect of high self-monitoring and self-sacrificing
behavior. Also, all of the questionnaire and surveys were correlated with each other.
Participants
Fifty undergraduate students, x men and x women, at a small liberal arts college
participated in this study. On average, participants were x years old (SD = x). These individuals
participated on a voluntary basis and will not be given any compensation for their time.
Participants were recruited by word of mouth, by peers, and professors as well as social media
posts.
Materials
Med

13
Self-Sacrificing Questionnaire. This measure was specifically developed for this study.
The participants will be given a list of seven items which gather retrospective data. An example
of an item asked would be: “Tell me about a time where you humbled yourself when you had
reasons to be proud.” For each of the seven items, the participants will rate their answers on 3
Likert scales (1 =very little; 7= as much as possible). The first scale dealt with the amount of
time. The second dealt to the intensity of the patient’s sacrifice. The final scale focuses on the
topic of personal gain and respectively altruistic helping. The three ratings for each question
were averaged together to get a total measure of sacrifice for that specific question. The overall
purpose of this measure was to gauge the participants helping behavior and altruism levels.
Self-Monitoring Scale The Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974) is a self-report measure
to identify individuals high and low in self-monitoring. It consists of 25 true-false descriptive
items. This measure has an internal consistency (alpha) of .70 (Snyder, 1987, p. 18). This
measure was constructed to provide a consistent self-report measure of self-monitoring. This
measure assesses the differences of expressive behavior and how the individual presents oneself.
An example item was: “At a party, I let others keep the jokes and stories going.” For this
question, answering “True” would be used to represent an aspect of high self-monitoring,
whereas, answering “False” would be used to represent low self-monitoring behavior. The
participants’ responses were compared to the key and then revalued as a high self-monitoring
point or a low self-monitoring point. After that the number of high self-monitoring were added
together to get a self-monitoring score. The set included items which describe how a person
presents one's self, attention to social cues, the ability to adapt one's self-presentation and
expressive behavior; (Snyder, 1987, p. 20).

14
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (M-C SDS), 1960 This was a 33-item
personality inventory intended to assess social desirability independent of psychopathology. The
answers to this measure are collected by the participant answering true or false. The participants
indicate if an item is true of them or not true of them. Then the individual’s score is summed and
compared to the key provided by Crowne and Marlowe (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). This score
represents the participant’s desire to be liked and included. An example of a statement would be:
“I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in need.” According to the key, a true
answer is considered “correct.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .88 (Crowne & Marlowe,
1960). The overall purpose of this measure is to gauge how strongly a participant wants to be
liked. This score will be correlated with the Self-Monitoring Scale measure.
Emotional Empathy Measure The measure of emotional empathy was designed and used
by Mehrabian and Epstein (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). The researchers defined emotional
empathy as recognition of another's feelings, and also sharing of those feelings, at least at the
main affective level. This measure includes 33 confirmatory or un-confirmatory statements
written in a likert scale ranging from 1 through 7. Numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33 were all reverse scored. For example if the participant answered 2 for
question number 22, the question would be scored as a 6. It was developed to measure/compare
the emotional empathy of an aggressive person and a helpful person (Mehrabian & Epstein,
1972). After reverse scoring is done, Items listed as true will receive one point; items listed as
false will be subtracted from the total. The reliability for this measure is 0.84. and has a 0.06
correlation with the Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability scale. For my study, the total score
that the participants received was the main focus of the empathy score.
Procedure

15
The participant came into the social laboratory and sign an informed consent form
explaining the general purpose of the study and the right to confidentiality. The individual was
randomly assigned using a random online generator to public or private conditions. First, the
participant filled out his or her demographic information, such as year and age, on the sheet
provided (see Appendix F). Next, they were given a packet containing the scales listed above. It
included the Self-Sacrificing questionnaire, emotional empathy measure, the social desirability
scale, and the self-monitoring scale. These can be found in the appendix (C, D, G, and I). They
answered the self-monitoring questionnaire in order to determine a baseline score of their self-
monitoring type. Then, they answered the empathy questionnaire in order to determine a baseline
of their empathic skills. After that, they completed the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale
in order to determine how strongly they were focused on peer relationships. And finally, the last
measure in the packet was the Self-Sacrificing Questionnaire; participants completed that as
well. After that, the participant was told that the experiment is over. Then the experimenter
proposed an opportunity for the participant to stay and spend some time helping others, however
the participants were allowed to leave at this time. I gave them a hand out scenario of the titan
dollar donation based on their determined audience condition (see Appendix A for public, and
see appendix H for Private.) The experimenter read a corresponding script to offer the
participants an opportunity to make cards for veterans (see Appendix B). Titan Dollars are the
student’s meal plan and spending money for the semester. These dollars are preset before the
beginning of that semester. Not all participants have the same amount of titan dollars at any
given time. Titan dollars can be used to demonstrate self-sacrificing because not every has extra
that they can spend, especially at the end of the semester. The participant was informed to
assume that all the responses are final and to be carried out. For the public condition, participants

16
were told to leave the handouts and cards on the tables. In the private condition, participants
were told to put the handouts and cards in a provided envelope. After the experiment, the
participants were debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Data Analysis
Figure 2: 2x2 (2 audience conditions x 2 self-monitoring conditions) design with between-
subjects measures. The figure demonstrates the predicted results that high self-monitoring
individuals will produce more self-sacrificing behavior when their responses are in a public
condition than when their responses kept confidential. Low self-monitors are expected to have
little change between the two audience conditions.
Results
It was predicted that high self-monitoting individuals produced more self-sacrificing
behavior than low self-monitoring individuals. However, the bivariate correlation was not
significant at the 0.05 level. The self-sacrificing measure (as measured by the SSBQ) and the
self-monitoring scale (as measured by the SelfMonitoring variable) were investigated using
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure

17
no violation of assumptions of normality, linear and homoscedasticity. There was no correlation
between the two variables, r (47) = .023, p <0.005, showing a no relationship between variables.
It was also predicted that low self-monitoring individuals will self-sacrifice out of
empathy. The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. The self-sacrificing measure (as
measured by the SSBQ) and the empathy score (as measured by the emptot variable) were
investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were
performed to ensure no violation of assumptions of normality, linear and homoscedasticity.
There was a medium positive correlation between the two variables, r (45) = .324, p <0.005,
showing a slight increase in both variables.
Discussion
Overall, the results did not support my main hypotheses. Self-monitoring was not related
to self-sacrificing behavior. This information shows that the self-sacrificing aspect of prosocial
behavior is independent of self-sacrificing personality traits. However, the results do show that
empathy is related to self-sacrificing behavior.
This study has two main strengths. The first one is that it is new bridge in literature. No
psychological literature comments directly on the interaction between self-monitoring and
sacrificing. However, evidence can relate empathy to both variables and in turn, becomes a
mediator. Most literature looks at self-sacrificing in relation to social relationships, unlike this
study, comparing self-sacrificing to another personality measure. The personality trait involved
is self-monitoring. Another strength of this study is that it concentrates on self-sacrificing
behavior specifically, instead of overall prosocial behavior. To further this point, a new
questionnaire was developed solely for this research and proved to be reliable, α= .86.

18
As well as strengths, this study also contains limitations. One limitation is that the thank
you cards for veterans may have not been the best indication of prosocial behavior. The thank
you cards were not taxing enough on the participants, whether it was because they were not
passionate about it or weren’t interested at all, we are not sure. Another limitation is the lack of
diversity and cultural emphasis. More diversity would be helpful in this study in order to further
a new hypothesis that self-sacrificing and self-monitoring are independent of cultural influences.
It was shown that social desirability, prosocial behavior, and self-monitoring are universal topics.
The hypotheses and expected outcomes, in theory, would not change expected due to universal
topics and relations to each other. Another limitation of this study is the use of self-report
measures. Self-report measures are subjective, especially in this case. Participants might feel the
need to lie, when asked about their social desirability and willingness to help other people. In
order to replicate this study, the limitations and problems must be corrected and adjusted.
These results provide a new basis for research. The most apparent topic that this data
relates to is the empathy and self-sacrificing behavior. This can be taken further to the topic of
selfless altruism. An interesting area of new research can examine which areas of prosocial
behavior specifically influenced by empathy. Some examples are sharing, comforting, and
cooperating. Furthermore, Studies looking at peer relations and friendships can also benefit from
this research, due to the fact that these topics are all social in nature. Social topics, such as these,
can value insights on how an individual’s personality relates to their social relationships.

19
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-
529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354.
FeldmanHall, O., Dalgleish, T., Evans, D., & Mobbs, D. (2015). Empathic concern drives costly
altruism. NeuroImage, 105, 347-356. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.043
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530
Mattingly, B. A. (2009). The effects of motivated sacrifice on relationship quality. (69).
Retrieved from American psychological association.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality,
40(4), 525-543. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x
Mill, J. (1984). High and low self-monitoring individuals: Their decoding skills and empathic
expression. Journal of Personality, 52(4), 372-388. doi: 10.1111/j.1467
6494.1984.tb00358.x
Oyamot, C., Snyder, M., & Fuglestad, P. (2010). Balance of power and influence in
relationships: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
27(1), 23-46. doi:10.1177/0265407509347302
Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Low self-control promotes the willingness to
sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1533-1540. doi:
10.1177/0956797613475457

20
Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior.
Child Developement, 67, 449-470.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.
New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
Soucie, K. M., Lawford, H., & Pratt, M. W. (2012). Personal stories of empathy in adolescence
and emerging adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(2), 141-158. doi:
10.1353/mpq.2012.0010
Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 281-292. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.43.2.281

21
Appendix
A. Dinning Dollars Collection Public
Name:
Email:
A group of Westminster staff and students are considering allowing students with extra
money on their titan cards to donate some of their flex dollars to help support students who are
struggling financially or have run out of flex dollars towards the end of the semester.
We are interested in seeing whether or not Westminster Students think this would be a
good idea. Please indicate whether or not you would be likely to support this program.
_ I would not interested
I would be willing to contribute:
_ Less than $5
_$5-$10
_$10-$15
_ $15-$20
_ More than $20
Year:
Meal plan:
(Please include Berlin Village or commuting plans)

22
B. Veteran Card Collection Script
Public:
Since my whole study is focusing on generosity, I am giving all of my participants the
chance to help with one of my projects. I am working on a project that has a lot to do with
generosity. Here are some other opportunities you might be interested in. I am asking
participants whether or not they can give up some of their time to fill out titan dollar donation
worksheet and also write a note in a thank you card or a few cards for the veterans in our area. If
you have time and are interested, please sign your name here indicating that you were one of the
students that participated today. I set out the titan dollar donation sheet as well as a few blank
cards and writing utensils for you. Remember, it’s always nice if you write a personal note. If
you don’t want to participate, let me know and you can leave right away.
Private:
Since my whole study is focusing on generosity, I am giving all of my participants the
chance to help with one of my projects. I am working on a project that has a lot to do with
generosity. Here some other opportunities you might be interested in. I am asking participants
whether or not they can give up some of their time to fill out a titan dollar donation worksheet
and also write a note in a thank you card or a few cards for the veterans in our area. If you have
time and are interested, I set out the titan dollar donation sheet as well as a few blank cards and
writing utensils for you. Remember, it’s always nice if you write a personal note. If you choose
to write any cards, please add them to the ones in the envelope. If you don’t want to participate,
let me know and you can leave right away.

23
C. Self-Sacrificing Questionnaire
Directions: For each question listed below try to think of different examples based on your
personal life experiences. Try to remember as much detail as you can. Then, rate the memory on
the scales provided.
Think about a time when you were very accepting of other people when it felt difficult.
How often have you done this?
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
I couldn’t think of any time I do this all the time
How much did you sacrifice to do this?
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
I gave as little as possible I did as much as I could
How much did you gain for yourself by doing this?
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
For personalgain for no personalbenefit
Think about a time that you were helpful to another person at the expense of yourself.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7

24
Think about a time that you were distresseda long time because you were trying to do
something for someone else.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
Think about a time when you humbled yourself when you had reason to be proud because
you did not make someone else feel bad.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7

25
Think about a time you had composed patience in order to help someone else evenwhen
you were in a rush.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
Think about a time you were considerate when dealing with others even when it felt
difficult. This can include being ethical, honest, and trustworthy.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
I couldn’t think of any time I do this all the
time
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7

26
Think about a time when you were generous in giving to others something important to you
evenwithout being asked.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
I couldn’t think of any time I do this all the
time
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
1----------------2----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7

27
D. Measure of Emotional Empathy
Directions: Please indicate how strongly these statements apply to you. Write the most
appropriate number, from the scale below, next to the listed item number.
1 It makes me mad to see a lonely stranger in a group
2 People make too much of the feelings and sensitivity of animals.
3 I often find public displays of affection annoying
4 1 am annoyed by unhappy people who are just sorry for themselves.
5 I become nervous if others around me seem to be nervous.
6 1 find it silly for people to cry out of happiness
7 I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems
8 Sometimes the words of a love song can move me deeply
9 I tend to lose control when I am bringing bad news to people
10 The people around me hove a great influence on my moods.
11 Most foreigners I have met seemed cool and unemotional
12 I would rather be a social worker than work in a job training center
13 I don't get upset just because a friend is acting upset
14 I like to watch people open presents.
15 Lonely people are probably unfriendly.
16 Seeing people cry upsets me
17. Some songs make me happy
18 I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel
19 I get very angry when I see someone being ill-treated
20 I am able to remain calm even though those around me worry.
21 When a friend starts to talk about his problems, I try to steer the conversation to something
wise
22. Another's laughter is not catching for me
23 Sometimes at the movies I am amused by the amount of crying and sniffing around me
24 I am able to make decisions without being influenced by people's feelings,
25 I cannot continue to feel OK if people around me are depressed.
26 It IS hard for me to see how some things upset people so much
27 I am very upset when I see an animal in pain.
28 Becoming uninvolved in books or movies u a little silly
29. It upsets me to see helpless old people
30 I become more irritated than sympathetic when I see someone's tears.
31 I become very involved when I watch a movie
32 I often find that I can remain cool in spite of the excitement around me
33 Little children sometimes cry for no apparent reason.
1----------------2-----------------3----------------4-----------------5--------------6--------------7
Not at all true Always true

28
E. Informed Consent Form
The purpose of the study is to examine how pro-social behavior is related to individual
differences in personality. You will be asked to complete a packet of questionnaires and surveys.
All information gathered in the experiment will be kept confidential and in no way be associated
with your session number or name. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you
have the right to withdraw at any time from this experiment with no consequences at any time.
The study should last no more than twenty minutes. If you choose to leave the experiment early,
all your information will be discarded accordingly. Feel free to ask any questions throughout the
study. If you have any future concerns pertaining to the study, you may contact me at
bruner22@wclive.westminster.edu or (412) 296-2039.
Please check the boxes below indicating that you have read the above information,
understand your rights, agree to participate in this experiment, and are 18 years of age or
older. Also, please sign your name on the lines below and write the date.
_______I understand my rights and agree to participate in this experiment
_______I am at least 18 years of age
__________________________ _____________________
(Sign Name) (Date)

29
F. Demographic Information Form
Please indicate your sex, year, and age. Thank you!
I am:
___ male
___ female
___ a first year
___ a sophomore
___ a junior
___ a senior
___ other
Please explain:____________________________________________
___ years old.

30
G. Self Monitoring Scale
Directions: The following statements indicate your personal reactions to different situations.
Think about each statement carefully because no two statements are exactly alike. Write T for
true and F for false. If a statement is mostly true, write T in the space next to the appropriate line.
. If a statement is mostly false write an F next to the line item. It is important that you answer as
honestly as you can. Your answers will be kept private.
1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.
2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like.
4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe.
5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information.
6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.
7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for
cues.
8. I would probably make a good actor.
9. I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or music.
10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am.
11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone.
12. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention.
13. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons.
14. I am not particularly good at making other people like me.
15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time.
16. I'm not always the person I appear to be.
17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please
someone else or win their favor.
18. I have considered being an entertainer.
19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to
be rather than anything else.
20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting.
21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations.
22. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.
23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so well as I should.
24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end).
25. I may deceive people bybeingfriendly whenI really dislikethem.

31
H. Dinning Dollars Collection Public
A group of Westminster staff and students are considering allowing students with extra
money on their titan cards to donate some of their flex dollars to help support students who are
struggling financially or have run out of flex dollars towards the end of the semester.
We are interested in seeing whether or not Westminster Students think this would be a
good idea. Please indicate whether or not you would be likely to support this program.
_ I would not interested
I would be willing to contribute:
_ Less than $5
_$5-$10
_$10-$15
_ $15-$20
_ More than $20
Year:
Meal plan:
(Please include Berlin Village or commuting plans)

32
I. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
Listedbelow are anumberof statements concerningpersonal attitudesand traits. Readeachitemand
decide whetherthe statementistrueor falseas it pertainstoyoupersonally.
1. Before votingIthoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates.
2. I neverhesitatetogooutof myway to helpsomeone in trouble.
3. It is sometimes hardforme togo on withmywork if I am not encouraged.
4. I have neverintensely dislikedanyone.
5. On occasion I have haddoubts aboutmyability tosucceedin life.
6. I sometimes feel resentful whenIdon'tgetmy way.
7. I am alwayscarefulaboutmymannerof dress.
8. My table manners athome are as goodas whenI eatout ina restaurant.
9. If I couldgetintoa movie withoutpayingandbe sure Iwasnot seenI wouldprobably doit.
10. Ona few occasions, Ihave givenupdoingsomethingbecauseIthoughttoolittle of myability.
11. I like togossipattimes.
12. There have beentimeswhen Ifeltlike rebellingagainstpeopleinauthority eventhoughIknew
they were right.
13. NomatterwhoI'm talkingto, I'malwaysagoodlistener.
14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something.
15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.
16. I'm alwayswillingtoadmititwhenI make amistake.
17. I alwaystryto practice whatI preach.
18. I don't findit particularly difficulttogetalongwithloudmouthed, obnoxious people.
19. I sometimes trytogetevenratherthanforgive andforget.
20. WhenI don't knowsomethingIdon'tatall mindadmittingit.
21. I am alwayscourteous, eventopeoplewho are disagreeable.
22. AttimesI have really insistedonhavingthingsmyownway.
23. There have been occasions whenI feltlikesmashingthings.
24. I wouldneverthinkof lettingsomeoneelsebe punished formywrongdoings.
25. I neverresentbeingaskedtoreturnafavor.
26. I have neverbeenirkedwhenpeople expressed ideasvery differentfrommyown.
27. I nevermake alongtripwithoutcheckingthe safety of mycar.
28. There have been timeswhenI wasquite jealousof the goodfortune of others.
29. I have almostneverfeltthe urge totell someone off.
30. I am sometimesirritatedbypeople whoaskfavors of me.
31. I have neverfeltthatI waspunishedwithout cause.
32. I sometimesthinkwhenpeople have amisfortune theyonly gotwhatthey deserved.
33. I have neverdeliberately saidsomethingthathurtsomeone's feelings.

33
J. Debriefing Form
Thank you for participating in this study. For this study, you were given a packet
of questionnaires. The questionnaires you completed will be used to measure personality
differences among students and helping behavior. I will also be looking at participants
responses to the titan card survey and willingness to write a card. All cards will be
donated to the Veterans Association at the end of my study. All of your responses will be
kept confidential and anonymous. The purpose of the study was to examine how self-
sacrificing behavior was affected by high or low self-monitoring types. It was
hypothesized that higher-self monitors would produce more selfless altruism, which then
produces more self-sacrificing behavior. If you have any further questions regarding this
study, please contact me or my capstone advisor Dr. Sherri Pataki. Thank you again for
your participation.
Emily Brune
bruner22@wclive.westminster.edu or (412)296-2039.
Dr. Sherri Pataki
patakisp@westminster.edu

34
Business Proposal
Periodof Performance
Pilot testing will take place immediately after peer review, April 18, 2013.
The proposed research projectwill begin September 2015 and end December
2015. Data collection will start at the beginning of September and will be
completed by the end of October. Data analysis will begin at the beginning of
November, or as soon as data collection has been completed. The presentation of
the final projectand data will take place the week before winter break in
December.
Budget
Printing money will be necessary for the packet of materials to pass out to
the participants, as well as the informed consentand debriefing forms. One
hundred informed consent forms, debriefing forms and packets will be needed.
Each packet has nine pages included. Eleven hundred pages are total for this
experiment. At one cent per page, this converts to a total of about $11. Thereare
no other known costs.
Qualificationof Scientific Personnel
The principle investigator of the study is responsiblefor conducting the
study with all participants in an ethical manner. Also, the principle investigator
will collect all data properly. The principle investigator will have scheduled times
each week to collect and per0formdata analysis. No other persons willbe
assigned to the proposed project.

35
Emily R. Brune
Box 381 Westminster College 3 Angora Road
New Wilmington, PA 16172 Carnegie, PA 15106
(724) 946-5555 bruner22@wclive.westminster.edu (412)429-5890
OBJECTIVE: To perform an experiment that expands on the knowledge of self-sacrificing
behavior.
EDUCATION:
Bachelor of Arts: Psychology Expected May 2016
Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA
GPA: 3.24 * Fluent in French
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Presented “Christian Coping Influences Stress Levels in Undergraduate Students” at the
Undergraduate Research & Arts Celebration at Westminster College, April 2014
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Statistical Methods & Analysis Class: “Christian Coping influences Stress levels in
Undergraduate Students”, Designed, and analyzed a research experiment which looked
at religious coping strategies, such as praying.
Spring 2014
Abnormal Psychology Class: “Self-Regulation in Bing Eating Disorder” Fall 2014
 Researched primary sources in my research on binge eating disorder
 Looked at the stigma of binge eating and how to lessen it
 Related binge eating to addiction pathways in the brain
HONORS:
Jerb Miller Scholarship, for outstanding academic achievement
Cochran Scholarship, for academic achievement
CAMPUS INVOLVEMENT:
Habitat for Humanity, Mission trip to Georgetown, SC
Seekers College Fellowship, 3 years
Bell Choir, member
Art Club, 2 year member
National Social Sorority, 2 years
Women’s Varsity Swim Team, 1 year member
Titan Marching Band, Color Guard, 1 year
COMPUTER SKILLS: Proficient in: Microsoft Office, Internet, SPSS, E-prime
CERTIFICATIONS: National Institute of Health Ethics (NIH)
WORK EXPERIENCE:
American Greetings Sales Associate, Mall at Robinson, Robinson, PA 2014-2015
Cashier and Health & Beauty Clerk, Shop N Save, Carnegie, PA 2013-2014

36
Operations Division Clerk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA 2012-2013
• Created spread sheets and completed data entry in Microsoft Excel
• Coordinated meeting events for Operations Division

BruneCapstoneProposal

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to BruneCapstoneProposal

BruneCapstoneProposal