Prosocial Behavior as a Result of Prosocial Music

prosocial music

Abstract

Past research supports the notion that prosocial music can promote prosocial behavior and lower aggression. For this study, I tested how prosocial lyrics, relative to no lyrics and aggressive lyrics, affected prosocial behavior in college students. Participants listened to a song that was neutral, aggressive, or prosocial in content. A Likert scale questionnaire assessed the likelihood of prosocial behavior based on a scenario that involved an act of theft toward the participants. Study One did not support that prosocial lyrics affected prosocial behavior; a Mixed Model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed main effects for Study Two. Participants who listened to a prosocial song while reading the lyrics were less likely to argue with their roommate than those who listened to a neutral song. Participants said they were more willing to let their roommate keep some money rather than all of the money. Participants also said they were less angry with their roommate after empathy was presented. The results suggested that prosocial lyrics can lower aggressive behaviors.

Keywords:  prosocial music, prosocial lyrics, prosocial behavior, college students

Prosocial Behavior as a Result of Prosocial Music

The directly proportionate relationship between aggression in media and aggressive cognitions and behaviors is one that research repeatedly supports. After decades of exposure, there may be a new form of reversing or combating the effects of aggressive cognitions and behaviors. Researchers are turning to prosocial media: media that promote the welfare of others by emphasizing helping behaviors and positive emotions such as empathy. Prosocial media appear to be having the opposite effect of aggressive media in such a way that it may be lowering aggression and promoting prosocial behaviors and cognitions.

To determine how prosocial media can counteract aggressive media, the effects of aggressive media must be defined through research. Television was one of the first forms of media to be researched in relation to aggression. Certain television shows have been under scrutiny for the amount of gore and violence portrayed and how it affects the viewers in regards to imitation of what they see. Thomas, Horton, Lippincott, and Drabman (1977) found that more frequent exposure to aggressive acts in television desensitized the participant’s emotional sensitivity to similar aggressive situations. When viewing real-life aggression in a film, children and adults were less likely to be emotionally responsive after viewing violence on a television drama program (Thomas et al., 1977).

Similarly, the violent content in many video games qualifies them for criticism of aggression and how they affect players. Participants who played a violent video game associated the outsiders of a group with more nonhuman than human traits (Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011). The violent video game players also rated confederates as less likely to possess secondary emotions, such as hope. Participants who played a violent video game also rated themselves with less positive human-uniqueness qualities, such as broadmindedness (Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011). Violent video game play resulted in participants scoring higher on state hostility, having less positive affect, and having higher aggravation relative to those who played a neutral or prosocial game (Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012). These feelings increased in participants playing the violent game compared to participants who played the neutral game (Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012).

Overall, aggressive media increase desensitization and aggravation, and lower positive affect.  Prosocial media are emerging as a counteractive approach to aggressive media by lowering aggressive behaviors and increasing helping behaviors. Television is one media type that can provide lessons of prosocial behaviors. Television that is prosocial in content can include a moral lesson; television that is not necessarily considered a prosocial show as a whole but still contains prosocial lessons can influence prosocial behavior in children. For example, Rosenkoetter (1999) found that children were able to understand and recall moral lessons in The Cosby Show, such as not stealing. Mothers rated their children who reportedly watched more prosocial sitcoms, such as Full House, to perform more prosocial behaviors, such as helping others (Rosenkoetter, 1999).

Video games centering on prosocial content typically target helping behaviors as the main objective of winning the game, unlike violent video games which typically center on performing violent actions, such as killing, to win the game. Greitemeyer and Osswald (2009) conducted a study using two video games, one of which was pre-rated as significantly more prosocial than the other game that was considered neutral. Participants played one of the two games and then performed the task of completing a story or completing a word to assess their aggressive cognitions. Both tasks had the opportunity for neutral, aggressive, or prosocial responses. Participants who played the prosocial video game had a reduced hostile expectation bias, which is the players’ expectation that the video game character would perform an aggressive act (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009). Participants in the prosocial group also had decreased accessibility of antisocial thoughts and reduced aggressive cognitions (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009).

Greitemeyer, Osswald, and Brauer (2010) conducted a follow-up study that addressed the relationship among prosocial video games, empathy, and schadenfreude (a person’s pleasure at someone else’s misfortune). Participants played one of two games that were previously rated as prosocial or neutral by Greitemeyer and Osswald (2009) and responded to short articles and essays after playing the games. Participants who played prosocial video games experienced increased empathy towards others and decreased pleasure of others’ misfortune, or schadenfreude (Greitemeyer, Osswald, & Brauer, 2010). Participants in the prosocial group indicated feeling less of an antisocial affect and having an increased interpersonal empathy (Greitemeyer, Osswald, & Brauer, 2010).

Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) found that participants who played a prosocial video game were more likely to perform the following helping behaviors: picking up pencils, participating in other studies without compensation, and intervening in a situation where a woman was harassed (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010). Participants experienced more prosocial thoughts after playing the prosocial video game. The same participants were more likely to help pick up spilled pencils than participants in the neutral condition. This finding suggests a mediating mechanism that prosocial thoughts tend to result in prosocial behavior (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010).

Another study on prosocial video games provided evidence of lowered feelings of state hostility and aggravation in participants as opposed to those who played a neutral or violent video game (Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012). One of the most significant findings of this study was that high trait aggression participants experienced lower feelings of aggravation than participants in the violent and neutral game groups, suggesting that prosocial video games can positively affect people who possess higher traits of aggression (Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012), (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010).

Researchers have also examined whether prosocial music can lower aggression and raise prosocial tendencies. Greitemeyer (2009b) conducted one of the first studies in order to examine this relationship. He found that participants had higher prosocial word completion scores if they listened to a song with prosocial lyrics, compared to those who listened to the neutral song. Participants who listened to the prosocial song were more empathetic towards the authors of two essays who were experiencing recent life struggles (Greitemeyer, 2009b). Greitemeyer (2009b) also found that participants who listened to a prosocial song were more likely to donate money than those who listened to a neutral song. Overall, participants had higher accessibility to prosocial thought, showed more interpersonal empathy, and showed an increase in prosocial actions after listening to a song with prosocial lyrics (Greitemeyer, 2009b).

Greitemeyer (2011) also tested the relationship between prosocial lyrics and lowering aggression. Participants who listened to a song with neutral lyrics had a higher amount of aggressive words in a word completion task than those who listened to a song with prosocial lyrics, thus lowering accessibility of antisocial thoughts (Greitemeyer, 2011). Prosocial songs elicited negative attitudes toward war and lower acceptance of penal code violence from participants (Greitemeyer, 2011). Overall, music with prosocial lyrics decreased aggressive cognition, affect, and behavior in participants (Greitemeyer, 2011).

The previous researchers addressed prosocial music in a specifically controlled setting. Jacob, Guégen, and Boulbry (2010) observed how playing music in a restaurant affected the behavior of customers. Customers who listened to the prosocial music during their meal tipped the waitress more often than those in the neutral and baseline (music normally played in the restaurant) conditions (Jacob et al., 2010). The researchers concluded that songs with prosocial lyrics are associated with helping behavior, i.e. tipping a waitress (Jacob et al., 2010). This study is important to note because it includes participants who did not give sole attention to the music in the background, unlike the other studies. These findings start to define the relationship of prosocial music and prosocial behaviors when the music is not the sole focus of attention.

The previously mentioned studies assessed how prosocial music made participants respond toward other peoples’ unfortunate situations without including the participant in them directly. I wanted to see if music with prosocial lyrics could influence prosocial behavior and decrease aggression if a situation involved the participant first hand, i.e. if the participant had an unfortunate event happen to them. Music is one of the most readily accessible and mobile forms of media, which is why I wanted to address that specific aspect of media rather than television or video games. The reasoning behind manipulating the lyrics comes from the notion that lyrics are the easiest aspect of prosocial music to examine, isolate, and portray prosocial messages. Increasing prosocial thoughts by exposure to prosocial music should lead to prosocial behavior by model of the mediating mechanism (Greitemeyer, 2009a). The hypothesis of the following studies was that prosocial lyrics would increase prosocial behavior by increasing empathy and lowering aggression.

Study One

The hypothesis was that the participants who listened to the song with prosocial lyrics would have higher levels of prosocial behavior in response to a scenario than participants who listened to the aggressive or neutral song.

Method:

Participants

Participants consisted of 64 students from Longwood University (18 males, 46 females). Participants did not report age and class rank. Participants voluntarily signed up for the study through an online signup system. Participants earned one point of extra credit for various psychology classes, ranging from general education courses to specific psychology major courses, as incentive for participating in the study.

Materials and Procedure

Participants signed up for the study under a deceptive title of “Money and Associated Importance”. Participants were assigned to one of three groups: no lyrics (control), prosocial lyrics, and aggressive lyrics. The songs were Michael Jackson’s “Will You Be There (Instrumental)”, “We Are the World” and “They Don’t Care About Us” respectively. The prosocial song “We Are the World” was rated as prosocial in previous research (Greitemeyer, 2009a). Lyrics for the songs are listed in Appendices C and D. Participants heard instructions to listen to the song, as well as to pay attention to the lyrics if there were any. Participants received instructions to listen to the song in order to clear their heads before participating in the survey. These songs were played on a classroom sound system from YouTube.com without the video showing. The prosocial song was 4 min 51 s, the aggressive song was 4 min 44 s, and the neutral song was 3 min 48 s.

Once the song was over, the participants read a scenario that provided opportunities for empathy or aggressive behaviors (Appendix A). In the first part of the scenario, the participant’s roommate was caught stealing $40 of hard earned money from the participant’s wallet. The participants then filled out a survey with a series of Likert scale statements ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). These statements addressed how important the money was to the participant, how upset the participant was, if the participant would fight with their roommate, and if the participant would demand the money back (Appendix A). The second part of the scenario, on the backside of the paper, provided opportunities for empathy by explaining that the roommate’s parents were laid off and the roommate needed the money for groceries and other necessities but was too embarrassed to ask. The participants then filled out a second series of Likert scale statements which readdressed how upset the participant was, if the participant thought the roommate needed the money more than the participant, if the participant would discuss the issue, and if the participant would let the roommate keep the money. Afterwards, participants were debriefed about the true nature of the study. I compared the participants’ answers on the Likert scale survey from each song condition.

Results

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed that there were no significant differences for the question “I will have a fight with my roommate about this”, F(2,63) = 1.66, p = .198.  There were also no significant differences between groups for the question “My roommate needs my money more than I do”, F(2,63) = 2.03, p = .141. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the other questions.

Discussion:

Overall, the results were incongruent with the hypothesis. Prosocial lyrics did not have an effect on the likelihood of prosocial behaviors. Prosocial lyrics also did not lower aggressive behaviors and cognitions in the participants.  There were several factors that may have led to these findings. Some participants seemed to not pay attention to the song while it was playing. Participants may have only paid attention to whether they knew the song or the beat, tempo, or melody. The lyrics of the aggressive song may have been hard to understand because they were sung faster than the prosocial song; the lyrics were also sung in an aggressive tone, which may have affected the enunciation of the words. In future research, if using an aggressive song, the lyrics should be available for both songs to truly measure how the lyrics affect prosocial behaviors and decreased aggression. A manipulation check would have addressed how aggressive or prosocial participants thought each song was in content.

Participants may have thought that $40 in the scenario was not a significant amount of money. If amount of money was not large enough to warrant aggressive behaviors and cognitions if stolen, then participants would not be more or less likely across conditions to let the roommate keep the money or to demand it back.

A larger underlying factor may be that the scenario did not include what type of relationship the roommate and the participant had. For some participants, they may have read the scenario with their own current roommate situations in mind. Participants may have thought of current roommates who are good friends, rather than someone they do not quite know or trust yet. As an observation, sometimes it may be easier to forgive or have empathy for a good friend versus a relative stranger.  All of these factors contributed to the changes made in Study Two.

Study Two

Based on the limitations of Study One, Study Two included revisions to the materials used in the first study. The money in the scenario was raised from $40 to $80 in order to make the money have a higher impact on the participant. The scenario also included a short description that the participant and roommate only knew each other for two weeks prior to the incident. In order to accurately address whether it is the lyrics themselves that have an effect on prosocial behaviors, only prosocial and neutral songs were used. The independent variable was again the type of lyric, with one group reading the lyrics while listening to the prosocial song. I hypothesized that participants who listened to the prosocial song while reading the lyric sheet would have higher levels of prosocial behavior in response to a scenario, compared to those who listened to the neutral song.

Method:

Participants

Participants consisted of 70 students from Longwood University (12 males; 58 females). The ages ranged from 18 to 27 years (M = 19, SD = 1.6). There were 33 freshmen, 18 sophomores, 11 juniors, and 8 seniors. Two participants’ data were excluded because they participated in Study One. Participants voluntarily signed up for the study through an online signup system. Participants earned one point of extra credit for various psychology classes, ranging from general education courses to specific psychology major courses, as incentive for participating in the study.

Materials and Procedure

Participants signed up for the study under a deceptive title of “Money and Associated Importance”. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: no lyrics (control), prosocial lyrics, and prosocial lyrics with a lyric sheet. The lyrics that the participants read are shown in Appendix C. The songs were the same prosocial and neutral song used in Study One. The procedure for the study remained the same as Study One with a few changes. The purpose of the song was portrayed as a way to ensure the same experience for all participants before the survey. Once the song was over, the participants read a scenario similar to the scenario used in Study One that provided opportunities for empathy or aggressive behaviors, with minor changes. In the first part of the scenario, the participant’s roommate was caught stealing $80 of hard earned money from the participant’s wallet. The statements on the survey addressed anger, hitting, having an argument, and suspicion of previous theft as aggressive responses (Appendix B). A manipulation check was included to ensure that participants thought $80 was a significant amount of money. The participants then filled out a second series of Likert scale statements that reevaluated anger of the participant. The statements also provided opportunities for prosocial behavior such as letting the roommate keep all or part of the money, discussing the issue rather than arguing, and admitting that the roommate needed the money more.

Results

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed the question “I will have an argument with my roommate about this” was approaching significance F(2, 69) = 2.80, p = .068. The participants who read the prosocial lyrics (M = 3.92, SD = .93) said they were less likely to have an argument with their roommate than those who hear the song with no lyrics (M = 4.48, SD = .90).

To examine the changes between the three groups from the initial set of questions to the second set of question, I conducted a 2 (question: first question vs second question) x 3 (lyric type: no lyrics, prosocial lyrics, or prosocial lyrics with a lyric sheet) Mixed Model ANOVA for each set of questions on that addressed aggressive and prosocial behaviors before and after the second part of the scenario.  The question sets were the within subjects variable and the lyric type was the between subjects variable. There was a main effect for the lyric manipulation for the behavior of arguing F(2, 67) = 4.61, p = .013 (Figure 1). A Tukey post hoc revealed that those in the control group (M = 3.11, SD = .88) said that they were more likely to have an argument with their roommate, whereas those who read the lyrics while listening to the prosocial song (M = 2.63, SD = .72) said that they were less likely to have an argument with their roommate, p = .014. Participants in the group who heard the prosocial song but did not read the lyrics (M = 3.00, SD = .82) said they were more likely to argue with their roommate than those who did read the prosocial lyrics while listening to the song, p = .072.

One of the Mixed Model ANOVAs showed a main effect for being angry at the roommate for stealing the money regardless of lyric manipulation F(1, 67) = 65.61, p < .001 (Figure 2). The participants were angrier (M = 4.84, SD = .40) with their roommate while answering the first set of questions, whereas they showed less anger (M = 3.94, SD = .99) for the second set of questions after reading the reasoning. There was a similar main effect between the two sets of questions for the amount of money participants would let their roommate keep F(1, 67) = 51.271, p < .001 (Figure 3). Participants who said that they would not let their roommate keep all of the money (M = 2.27, SD = 1.20) said that they would let their roommate keep some of the money (M = 3.20, SD = 1.35). These two main effects support that participants were more likely to change their opinions toward their roommate once they learned why the roommate stole the participant’s money.

Discussion:

Overall, the study showed that prosocial lyrics were helpful in lowering a participant’s aggressive behavior of arguing. Participants were less angry and more willing to let the roommate keep a partial amount of the money once they understood why the roommate stole it. The findings parallel those of previous research (Greitemeyer, 2011) showing that prosocial lyrics lower rates of aggression. Prosocial lyrics can positively affect the behaviors and cognitions of people.

The scenario itself provided an explanation of the roommate’s action that should have easily elicited empathy. A manipulation check for empathy toward the roommate would address differences in empathy across conditions. Further examination of the relationship between empathy and decreased aggression would help to explain why participants were less angry and more likely to let the roommate keep some of the money after learning the explanation, regardless of which song participants heard.

The questionnaire should have also included a manipulation check to ensure that the participants viewed the prosocial song as more prosocial in content than the neutral song. The prosocial song was previously rated as prosocial in content (Greitemeyer, 2009a), but the song should have been rated again by this study’s participants.

Similar to previous research on music with prosocial lyrics (Greitemeyer, 2009b; 2011; Jacob, Guégen, & Boulbry, 2010), this study only observed short-term effects. Future research should address long-term effects on participants. This study also only tested for the lyrics of the song. While the artist was the same for each song, other aspects, such as tempo, were not controlled.  Using the same song and changing the lyrics of that song would control for all assets of a song, providing more accurate representation of the effect of prosocial lyrics on prosocial behavior.

Defining the relationship between prosocial media and prosocial behavior is important because it could facilitate increased prosocial behavior in everyday situations. Further research could examine how prosocial music played in schools between class changes affects the moods and behaviors of students. Prosocial music on the radio may reduce aggression of drivers in heavy traffic areas. Research to this point showed that prosocial music can lower aggression and increase prosocial thoughts and behaviors. Emphasizing this type of prosocial media could effectively decrease the impact aggressive media has had on aggressive behaviors.

References:

Greitemeyer, T. (2009a). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial behavior: Further evidence and a mediating mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1500-1511.  doi: 10.1177/0146167209341648

Greitemeyer, T. (2009b). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial thoughts, affect, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 186-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.003

Greitemeyer, T. (2011). Exposure to music with prosocial lyrics reduces aggression: First evidence and test of the underlying mechanism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 28-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.005

Greitemeyer, T., & McLatchie, N. (2011). Denying humanness to others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 22(5), 659-665. doi: 10.1177/0956797611403320

Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2009). Prosocial video games reduce aggressive cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 896-900. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.005

Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 211-221. doi: 10.1037/a0016997

Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., & Brauer, M. (2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10(6), 796-802. doi: 10.1037/a0020194

Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., & Boulbry, G. (2010). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on tipping behavior in a restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 761-763. doi: 10.1016.j.ijhm.2010.02.004

Rosenkoetter, L. I. (1999). The television situation comedy and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 979-993. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00135.x

Saleem, M., Anderson, C. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on college students’ affect. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 263-271. doi: 10.1002/ab.21427

Thomas, M. H., Horton, R. W., Lippincott, E. C., & Drabman, R. S. (1977). Desensitization to portrayals of real-life aggression as a function of exposure to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(6), 450-458. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.6.450

Figure 1. Differences in likelihood of arguing. Mean answers on a Likert Scale question from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) for question four “I will have an argument with my roommate about this” and question ten “I want to discuss this issue with my roommate, rather than argue about it”. The asterisk indicates the significant difference from the Tukey post hoc, p < .014. The participants in the group who heard the prosocial song while reading the lyrics were less likely to argue with their roommate than those in the neutral song group with no lyrics.

 

Figure 2. Differences in anger. Mean answers on a Likert Scale question from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Significant difference occurred between the two questions, with lyric type having no effect F(1, 67) = 65.61, p < .001. Participants were less angry once they were informed of why their roommate stole the money, regardless of what song they heard.

 

Figure 3. Differences in likelihood of giving. Mean answers on a Likert Scale question from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Significant difference occurred between the two questions, with lyric type having no effect F(1, 67) = 51.27, p < .001. Participants were more likely to let their roommate keep some of the money, regardless of what song they heard.

Appendix A

Please read the following scenario carefully.

You have just finished working a shift of your 35-hour workweek to help pay for your college tuition. It is late at night and you still have to study for two tests tomorrow, so you decide to stop by a place where you can get food quickly and take it home. You realize before you order that you left your wallet at home before you left for work. You decide to drive home to get your wallet and then go back to get some food. When you walk into your room, you witness your roommate taking $40 out of your wallet.

Please read the following statements and circle only one number for each statement.

1. I am upset with my roommate for stealing my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

2. I worked hard for my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

3. My money is worth a significant amount to me.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

4. I will have a fight with my roommate about this.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

5. I am wondering if my roommate has stolen my money in the past.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

6. I will demand that my roommate give back my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

Please read the following scenario carefully.

After witnessing your roommate take your money, they break down in front of you. They start to explain that their parents got laid off around the same time and the family is struggling for money. Your roommate was too embarrassed to tell you that they could not afford groceries and other necessities. They explain that they never meant to hurt you or to have to steal money from you.

 

7. I am still upset with my roommate for stealing my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

8. I will tell my roommate to keep the money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

9. My roommate needs my money more than I do.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

10. I want to discuss this issue with my roommate, rather than fight about it.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

11. Stealing my money was wrong.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

Appendix B

Age: _______                         Sex: _______

Class (Circle One): Freshman      Sophomore      Junior      Senior      Graduate

Please read the following scenario carefully.

You have just finished working a shift of your 35-hour workweek to help pay for your college tuition. It is late at night and you still have to study for two tests tomorrow, so you decide to stop by a place where you can get food quickly and take it home. You realize before you order that you left your wallet at home before you left for work. You decide to drive home to get your wallet and then go back to get some food. When you walk into your room, you witness your roommate taking $80 out of your wallet without your permission. You and your roommate have known each other for only 2 weeks.

Please read the following statements and circle only one number for each statement.

1. I am angry at my roommate for stealing my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

2. Eighty dollars is a significant amount of money to have stolen.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

3. I want to hit my roommate for stealing my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

4. I will have an argument with my roommate about this.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

5. I suspect my roommate has stolen my money in the past.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

6. I will demand that my roommate give back my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

Please read the following scenario carefully.

After witnessing your roommate take your money, he/she emotionally breaks down in front of you. They start to explain that his/her parents got laid off around the same time and the family is struggling for money. Your roommate was too embarrassed to tell you that he/she could not afford groceries and other necessities. Your roommate explains that he/she never meant to hurt you or to have to steal money from you.

Please read the following statements and circle only one number for each statement.

 

7. I am still angry at my roommate for stealing my money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

8. I will let my roommate keep the money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

9. My roommate needs my money more than I do.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

10. I want to discuss this issue with my roommate, rather than argue about it.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

11. Stealing my money was wrong.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

12. I will let my roommate keep some of the money.

Strongly Disagree                                      Neutral                                                    Strongly Agree

1————————–2————————–3————————–4————————–5

 

Appendix C

“We Are the World”

There comes a time, when we heed a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying, and it’s time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can’t go on, pretending day by day
That someone somewhere will soon make a change
We all are a part of God’s great big family
And the truth, you know,
Love is all we need

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making, we’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart, so they’ll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making, we’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

When you’re down and out, there seems no hope at all
But if you just believe there’s no way we can fall
Well… well…. Well…
Let’s realize that a change can only come
When we stand together as one

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making, we’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

Appendix D

“They Don’t Care About Us”

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

Skin head, dead head, Everybody gone bad
Situation, aggravation, Everybody allegation
In the suite, on the news, Everybody dog food
Bang bang, shot dead, Everybody’s gone mad

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
Beat me, hate me, You can never break me
Will me, thrill me, You can never kill me
Do me, sue me, Everybody do me
Kick me, strike me, Don’t you black or white me

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
Tell me what has become of my life
I have a wife and two children who love me
I am the victim of police brutality, now
I’m tired of bein’ the victim of hate
You’re rapin’ me off my pride
Oh, for God’s sake
I look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy… Set me free

Skin head, dead head, Everybody gone bad
Trepidation, speculation, Everybody allegation
In the suite, on the news, Everybody dog food
Black male, black mail, Throw your brother in jail

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

Tell me what has become of my rights
Am I invisible because you ignore me?
Your proclamation promised me free liberty, now
I’m tired of bein’ the victim of shame
They’re throwing me in a class with a bad name
I can’t believe this is the land from which I came
You know I really do hate to say it
The government don’t wanna see
But if Roosevelt was livin’, He wouldn’t let this be, no, no

Skin head, dead head, Everybody gone bad
Situation, speculation, Everybody litigation
Beat me, bash me, You can never trash me
Hit me, kick me, You can never get me

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

Some things in life they just don’t wanna see
But if Martin Luther was livin’, He wouldn’t let this be, no, no

Skin head, dead head, Everybody gone bad
Situation, segregation, Everybody allegation
In the suite, on the news, Everybody dog food
Kick me, strike me, Don’t you wrong or right me

All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

(Repeat 3 times)

Leave a Comment

*


Please leave these two fields as-is: