ccur and thus giving us a more intelligent response to the problem.The authors assumed that giving money or something of value is the best way of producing prosocial behavior. They also assumed that if it was conducted in private that it would more fulfilling.The procedures that were used seemed to be what they needed to get the results they were looking for. There were a few things that I did not agree with; one was the fact that they used only women experimenters. I would like to know their basis behind why they only used women. The second is if they gave the experiment in groups to all the participants or if it was done on a more individual level. The reason I ask that is because some people are more willing to give if they are not in groups but are by themselves but that would just show a private self-schemas.I agree with the conclusions of these experiments. They show a great deal of planning and research. The methods that were used were backed by previous research. I think that the only alternative explanation there could be it that the sample size was just too small.There would be at least two follow-up studied conducted. The first would almost identical to the first study here. I would change the experimenters to one group with one male and one female and a second would be conducted with two male experimenters. I would expect to find by doing this a greater interaction with the self-aware males. The second follow-up experiment would be one of the topics touched upon in the general discussion. I would conduct a study in the qualifications that are important and that are necessary for prosocial behavior. ...
