Other-serving vs Self-serving Instructions in US College Commencement Speeches: A Quantitative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i2.2613Keywords:
altruism, service, education, college, graduation, commencementAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Research supports that serving others and practicing altruism is beneficial for one’s health, wellbeing, and success compared to solely serving oneself. However, it is unclear if this mindset is effectively communicated to young people, particularly college students. My objective was to perform a quantitative analysis of other-serving versus self-serving instructions in commencement speeches at graduation ceremonies of top-ranked U.S. colleges.
METHODS: I analyzed transcripts of commencement speeches at the 20 “Best Colleges” according to U.S. News and World Report rankings. Two trained independent raters coded each sentence of the speeches as either containing instruction (i.e., imperative/command sentence) versus no instruction. Next, the two raters classified each instruction as either (1) other-serving, (2) self-serving, or (3) neutral (serving neither). I tested inter-rater agreement using Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ), and resolved any disagreement by consensus with a third rater. I pooled the data and performed descriptive statistics with sensitivity analyses to ensure that a small proportion of speeches were not skewing results.
RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement was very good (κ >0.85). Of 305 total instructions (mean 15/speech, range 2-44/speech), 148 were neutral. Of the 157 non-neutral instructions, 71 (45%) were other-serving and 86 (55%) were self-serving. Within individual speeches, there was wide variation in the proportion of other-serving versus self-serving instructions (range 0-100%); however, sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect results.
CONCLUSION: I found that other-serving and self-serving instructions were balanced in commencement speeches at top-ranked U.S. colleges. Additional research is needed to test the impact of these different messages on students.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Anderson C., Sharps D.L., Soto C.J., John O.P. (2020). People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 117(37): 22780–86. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005088117
Anderson N.D., Damianakis T., Kröger E., Wagner L.M., Dawson D.R., Binns M.A., Bernstein S., Caspi E., Cook S.L. (2014). The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: A critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychol Bull, 140(6):1505–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037610
Byrt, T. (1996). How good is that agreement? Epidemiology, 7(5):561. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199609000-00030
Clarke TC, Black LI, Stussman BJ, Barnes PM, Nahin RL. (2015). Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002–2012. Natl Health Stat Report, (79): 1–16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573565/
Galloway S. The Algebra of Happiness: Notes on the Pursuit of Success, Love, and Meaning. Penguin, 2019.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2021). Making Caring Common. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Available at: https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/
Konrath S.H., O'Brien E.H., Hsing C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev,15(2):180-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377395
Konrath, S. The Joy of Giving. In: Burlingame D., Seiler T., Tempel G. (eds.), Achieving Excellence in Fundraising (4th edition). Wiley, 2016.
Mor N., Winquist J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 128(4):638–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.638
Nelson S.K., Layous K., Cole S.W., Lyubomirsky S. (2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion. 16(6):850–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000178
Nelson-Coffey S.K., Fritz M.M., Lyubomirsky S., Cole S.W. (2017). Kindness in the blood: A randomized controlled trial of the gene regulatory impact of prosocial behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 81:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.03.025
Okun M.A., Yeung E.W., Brown S. (2013). Volunteering by older adults and risk of mortality: A meta-analysis. Psychol Aging, 28(2):564–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031519
Padilla-Walker L.M., Millett M.A., Memmott-Elison M.K. (2020). Can helping others strengthen teens? Character strengths as mediators between prosocial behavior and adolescents’ internalizing symptoms. J Adolesc, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.001
Pew Research Center. (2016). A Divided and Pessimistic Electorate. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/11/10/a-divided-and-pessimistic-electorate/
Poulin M.J., Brown S.L., Dillard A.J., Smith DM. (2013). Giving to others and the association between stress and mortality. Am J Public Health, 103 (9):1649–55. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300876
Vergunst F., Tremblay R.E., Nagin D., Algan Y., Beasley E., Park J., Galera C., Vitaro F., Côté S.M. (2019). Association between childhood behaviors and adult employment earnings in Canada. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019, 76(10):1044–51. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1326
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 Isabel Trzeciak; Stephen Trzeciak
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.
