Psychology

 

Paper Title

One of the ways researchers are examining how a person might increase their self-control or self-regulation tendencies is by engaging in ritualistic behavior. Past research has shown that engaging in rigid and repetitive rituals will help an individual feel more disciplined in themselves, thus enhancing self-control (Tien et al., 2018). These feelings of self-discipline by way of engaging in ritualistic behavior, could provide the strategies to help people cope with psychological problems, especially in the context of COVID-19. As such, we approach the following research question: will engaging in ritualistic behavior improve a person’s ability to act in a prosocial way? Fischer and colleagues (2013) define prosociality as “cooperative orientations and behaviors” (p. 116). Our objective of measuring prosociality is accomplished by way of the participants choosing to go to a party that is not indicative of prosocial behavior or choosing to not attend the party which would be categorized as prosocial behavior because they would be cooperating with protective measures to slow the spread of coronavirus.

The novel coronavirus has caused uncertainty in many people’s lives. It has broughtThe current study aims to fill this void by focusing on how engaging in rituals specifically might improve a person’s ability to engage in prosocial behavior within the context of COVID-19.We examine ritualistic behavior because prior research has established that rituals improve self-control which in turn improves feelings of self-discipline, adjustment, and mitigates overall psychological stressors therefore leading to more prosocial behavior (Tian et al., 2018; Muraven, 2010; Xygalatas et al., 2013; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2008).

The psychological stressors COVID-19imposesbring many negative emotions to the surface. It isimportant to understand how these stressors impact prosocial behavior. Particularly because the containment and decline of the virus depends on the ability of people to engage in prosocial behaviors like social distancing, wearing a mask, extra hygiene measureswhich also consequently evoke negative emotions and/or reactions like fear, sadness, and empathy. Therefore, it is important to ascertain what might improve prosocial behavior. Yang and Chu (2016) examined why fear is important to consider because when people are exposed to fear-inducing disasters, much like COVID-19 and in their research case, Ebola, “this information may trigger empathy and sadness, which could lead to more prosocial behaviors, however, it is important to take into account the amount of fear it might evoke” (p. 849). Furthermore, they digress into how overwhelming fear forces the individual to control their own fear rather than engaging in prosocial behaviors that would aid in solutions and ultimately a more rapid conclusion to the traumatic and antisocial emotional trigger, Ebola (Yang & Chu, 2016). While this study was conducted to examine how Americans’ fear of Ebola impacted their engagement with prosocial behavior, this current study uses similar measures of prior research like Thus, if these psychological stressors or moderators are found to be mitigated by the rituals the participants engage in, the ritualistic behavior might posit a possible solution that would tap into the public’s ability to engage in prosocial behaviors like following social-distance protocols, wearing a mask, and more.In turn, this would help decrease the spread of the virus and aid in getting the economy and people’s daily activities back to normal.

Previous research hasalso established that rigid and repetitive rituals enact self-control and that high self-control is associated with feelings of self-discipline which result in prosocial behaviors (Tian et al., 2018; Xygalatas et al., 2013). It is also understood that increased feelings of self-discipline and the rituals themselves help people better adjust whenpsychological stressors arise (Tangney et al., 2008). In the present study however, the participants do not engage in

Furthermore, the perceived severity of COVID-19 also plays a role into whether a person will engage in prosocial behavior (Li et al., 2020). Li and associates (2020) also report that self-control moderates the perceived severity of COVID-19. This was measured by on online survey using snowball sampling and this deemed sufficient practice to gather accurate data. Hence, the present study also uses survey method to collect data. This perceived severity of COVID-19 also plays into the fear aspect of the pandemic and our ability to engage in prosocial behavior.

Heinskou and Liebst (2016) report that “humans have a phylogenetically determined response hierarchy where the default behavior is engaged in entering into prosocial-affiliative interactions” (p.362). Basically, this meansthat humans’ default behavior is to act in a prosocial way. However, the study goes on to report that the micro-interaction rituals we engage in like reading facial expressions, synchronizing heart and breathing rhythms, and assessing the safety level of another person must happen in a face to face interaction (Heinskou&Liebst, 2016).Ultimately, humans want to behave in prosocial ways but in the middle of a pandemic when fear is evoked, Also, when a prosocial behavior like wearing a mask is covering your face, it makes reading facial expressions, a micro-interaction ritual, very difficult. Which in turn, is alarming because the fear people already feel from the pandemic is bolstered by an action that is safe and would help mitigate the risk and danger of the virus. When someone is caught up in not feeling safe and are fearful, they do not feel as in control of themselves and in turn, less likely to engage in prosocial behavior.

Moreover, since this study is conducted in an online format, the physical proximity to other people is unknown. According to Porges (2011),“To develop a social bond, individuals have to be in close proximity”(p. 267).Therefore, if participants are taking the survey near other people, there is a possibility of synchronizing on a biological level which might lead them to choose the option engaging in prosocial behavior more so than if they were just by themselves or  not already engaging in prosocial behaviors like mask-wearing or not social distancing.They then would be more inclined to not choose the prosocial behavior option. These are all conditions to consider in this current study with the knowledge of prior research guiding ourhypothesis.

In addition to this, it is also important to examine how the non-rigid or repetitive rituals used in this study is relevant to previous works found on the extreme nature of rituals on prosocial behavior. Fischer and colleagues (2013) established that knowing other people’s sacred values are good predictors of social behaviors.

So, in this way, mask-wearing, if the group is fully committed to abiding by the rules or committed to this prosocial behavior, then overall, it will intensify the prosocial behaviors.This public ritual of mask-wearing could increase the oneness people feel for each other but, the difference in opinions and moderators in this study like perceived severity of COVID-19, anxiety, perceived susceptibility, and response efficacy all play a role into how the ritual will affect or improve prosocial behavior.

Building off previous research and theory demonstrating how rituals might affect one’s ability to engage in prosocial behavior, we hypothesized that engaging in this presented type of non-rigid or repetitive rituals, in the ritual condition of the experiment,will not improve the participants ability to choose the option that acts in a prosocial way (not attending the non-socially distanced party) compared to the control condition.Furthermore, the oneness, physical proximity, extremeness of the ritual has shown to play a factor across populations and cultures and other comparable pandemics (Xygalatas et al., 2013; Heinskou&Liebst, 2016;Yang & Chu, 2016; Li et al., 2020).Rituals evoke a person’s feeling of discipline which will in turn increase their self-control, impulse control, and psychological adjustment (Tangney, et al., 2008; Muraven, 2010). However, in this case, since the ritual is not overwhelmingly uniting, sacred, or consistently practiced like previous research has indicated is predictive of prosocial behavior, this is why the null hypothesis is hypothesized to be

The Current Study

 

 

 

Method

Participants and Design

A total of 164 participants were recruited using convenience sampling from Purdue University students in Psychology 203 Research and Methods class. This was a between-subject experimental design. Each participant was randomly assigned to either a ritual condition or the control condition. The participation in the experiment was completely optional and participants were not compensated for their time. Out of the 164 participants 118 identified as women, 42 as men, 0 as trans, 3 identified as a gender not listed, and 1 preferred not to answer. The participants age ranged from 18 to 29 years old. The average age was 20.09 years old for the entire study.

For the random condition, there were a total of 80 participants. The average age for the random condition was 20.26 years. In the ritual condition there were a total of 84 participants. The average age for the ritual condition was 19.92 years.

Within the entire study, 54 participants are in their first year in college, 68 in their second, 34 in their third, 7 in their fourth, and 1 participant stated they have had 4 or more years of college. The entire sample was also asked what represents theirindividual household income, before taxes, across all sources (e.g., wages and salaries, dividends and interest, unemployment insurance, disability income, etc.). 127 participants stated their individual income was less than $10,000, 20 participants fell between $10,000 to $19,999, 5 participants were between $20,000 to $29,999, 4 were between $30,000 to $39,999, 3 were between $40,000 to $49,999, 2 fell between $50,000 to $59,999, 1 reported being between $80,000 to $89,999, 1 reported between $100,000 to $149,999, and 1 fell between $150,000 or more.

For the entire study, the participants were also asked to note their household size. The household size is defined by those who they live with on a permanent basis (i.e., not just during the school year), and includes:- You- Any spouse/partner who you live with- Any parent(s) or guardian(s) who you live with- Any children and dependents for whom you or the parent(s)/guardian(s) you live with are financially responsible. 15 participants reported living with only themselves in their household, 13 participants reported 2 people, 37 participants reported 3 people, 58 participants reported 4 people, 32 participants reported 5 people, 7 participants reported 6 people, 1 participant reported 7 people, and 1 participant reported 8 people.

The entire sample was also asked what represents their annual household income, before taxes, across all sources (e.g., wages and salaries, dividends and interest, unemployment insurance, disability income, etc.). 8 participants stated their individual income was less than $10,000, 6 participants fell between $10,000 to $19,999, 6 participants were between $20,000 to $29,999, 6 were between $30,000 to $39,999, 8 were between $40,000 to $49,999, 9 fell between $50,000 to $59,999, 14 reported being between $60,000 to $69,999, 8 reported between $70,000 to $79,999, 10 reported between $80,000 to $89,999, 9 reported between $90,000 to $99,999, 26 reported between $100,000 to $149,999, and 49 fell between $150,000 or more.

Additionally, 77 participants reported they were employed. While 87 participants reported they were unemployed. Finally, the participants were not compensated for their time. The survey was completely voluntary and completely anonymous.

 

Materials

Manipulation check.Four items were used to gauge the effectiveness of the manipulation (e.g., “example item”) each rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Scores on each of the items were averaged, with high scores indicating more …what do high score mean on the scale- if it doesn’t make sense to include this, then don’t but include Cronbach’s at the end (a = 0.63).

Prosocial Decision-Making.

 

Procedure

The current study was conducted online via the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey was completely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time. Once the participants consented to participate, they were asked to commit to providing their best data possible as they participate and completed the survey. Then, each participant answered questions regarding their feelings to COVID-19. Every participant then answered questions concerning their perceived susceptibility, anxiety, perceived severity, and response-efficacy about COVID-19 (which were not analyzed in this study and will not be discussed further). they were randomly assigned to either the random or ritual condition.

Each participant read a short vignette that set up the scene for the decision they had to make following this step. The following text is what all the participants read:

Last night, you receive a text message from your good friend, a fellow student at Purdue. Your friend is planning to throw a party this Saturday and has invited you to join. There will be 20-30 people at the party. Your friend always throws great parties, and several of your other friends are planning to attend. You know that you will have a lot of fun at the party, and that your friend will be very disappointed if you cannot come.

However, you know that other people at the party won’t follow the Protect Purdue Pledge (e.g., maintaining social distancing and wearing masks). Because of this, you will need to decide between attending the party and following the Protect Purdue Pledge. Because following the Protect Purdue Pledge involves avoiding off-campus events where others are not following social distancing and mask guidelines, you will not be able to go to your friend’s party if you decide to follow the Protect Purdue Pledge.

Next, each participant was randomly assigned to the ritual or random/control conditions. If they were assigned to the ritual condition, the participant was asked to perform the following gestures, in the order they are listed below:

Sit upright

Put your hands on your knees

Take a deep breath

Close your eyes

Bow your head

Silently count to 10

Then, open your eyes.

Following this, they were asked to perform another set of rituals in the order listed below. Note, they are all different than the first set.

Sit upright

Put your hands on your knees

Take a deep breath

Close your eyes

Bow your head

Silently count to 10

Then, open your eyes

In the control condition, the participants were asked to perform the following gestures, in any order they want.

• Sit normally
• Place a hand on your belly
• Cough
• Blink your eyes
• Shake your head
• Look at the power button on your device just for a few seconds
• Wink

Following this, they were asked to perform another set of rituals in any order they wanted. Note,  they are all different than the first set.

• Touch your finger to your nose
• Slouch in your seat
• Look around
• Cross your legs just for a few seconds
• Breathe in and out
• Squeeze your eyes shut
• Move your head

Finally, each participant regardless of the condition they were in were faced with this decision and choices: Based on the information provided earlier, would you decide to: Attend your friend’s party, or Miss out on your friend’s party.

After this decision each participant was asked a series of questions regarding their willpower, mental feelings, sharpness and focused, how much control they felt, how easy it is for them to follow the Protect Purdue Pledge, their ability to follow the Protect Purdue Pledge, to what extend they performed the gestures, how they felt the gestures seemed like a ritual, how repetitive the gestures were, how rigid the gestures were, how meaningful the gestures were, how they focused on their breathing, physical sensation of their breath, how in touch they were with their body, how absorbed they were in the present moment, how focused their thoughts were. All of the responses to those questions were in the form of a 7-point Likert scale. To conclude the survey, each participant was asked to provide demographic information.

Many of the survey questions were manipulation checks to decipher whether or not the question was asking what was intended. It was also there to ensure the participant wouldn’t rush through the questions and would abide by their commitment to provide their best efforts to the study.They also checked whether or not the behavior was ritualistic in nature or not and evaluated their feelings toward the behavior and choice. This might offer insight into the results. It also checked for whether mindfulness was a confounding variable. We wanted to ensure the survey asked questions that took into consideration these confounding variable so we can consider those results when the data becomes available to us.

Results

TO BE WRITTEN

 

Discussion

TO BE WRITTEN