1. Make sure you read the chapter in the book first regarding operant conditioning and watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA BEFORE you do this activity.

2. Go to the following link. http://www.kscience.co.uk/animations/anim_5.htm#top  (There are no instructions other than to select option 1, 2, or 3. It is up to you to figure out how to get things to happen. Some of the things you may encounter are “virtual candy” and noises. Make sure your speakers are on.)

If you have any problems accessing the skinner box, try right clicking in the box and then click play.

3. What principles of operant conditioning did the activity use (positive or negative reinforcement or positive or negative punishment)? Discuss your experiences with the activity (was it frustrating, how did you figure it out, etc.). (Warning.. this activity may get very frustrating… but stick with it for a little bit)

4. Then for fun (to de-stress from this activity!) , check out this link that demonstrates classical conditioning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfZfMIHwSkU

Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Person-Centric, and Progressing

Corporate social responsibility (CSR), or the “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis 2011, p. 855), has long been interpreted through the lens of stakeholder theory, wherein CSR is seen as fulfillment of organizational obligations to a panoply of stakeholders both internal and external to the firm (Carroll 1991, Freeman & Moutchnik 2013). Yet not all stakeholder groups have historically been given equal attention in the literature. For decades, sociologists and economists have examined CSR from a firm’s perspective, whereas marketing and consumer research has sought to understand how the public’s views of an organization’s level of social responsiveness translate into consumer preference. Collectively, this research was undertaken largely to understand the instrumental, financial benefit of CSR. Accordingly, and with some irony, for many years this focus overshadowed the examination of two stakeholder groups perhaps most relevant to the seeming purpose of CSR (e.g., ameliorating human misery; Margolis & Walsh 2003): those who plan for, participate in, and witness CSR (e.g., employees of all levels), and the intended beneficiaries of CSR.

With the rise of employee1-focused micro-CSR research, person-centric work psychology, and humanitarian work psychology (HWP), a sea change is occurring regarding the field’s perspective on CSR (Rupp et al. 2014). Just a few years ago only 4% of the CSR research was reported to take an individual-level perspective (Aguinis & Glavas 2012). Subsequent to this, the CSR literature has seen a marked jump in empirical research on the psychology of CSR, leading to the need for the current review. This is important because, after all, although it is on behalf of corporations that acts of CSR are planned and completed, it is truly individuals who advocate for, comply with, and participate in CSR (Crilly et al. 2008, Ones & Dilchert 2012).

Mindful that CSR is a multilevel, multidisciplinary, and often fragmented construct encompassing decades of research across many areas, we do not aim to speak to all associated issues of CSR as a field of research and practice. Rather, we have organized this review around a series of questions aimed at touching on the most salient topics surrounding micro-CSR today. We present five broad questions pertaining mainly to employee-focused micro-CSR and use each to organize and review the burgeoning research in this area. Our responses to each question incorporate the varied theoretical perspectives on CSR motivations, the vast array of findings on employee-focused micro-CSR, and an analysis of gaps in the literature. The review also attempts to unearth some of the less discussed issues pertinent to CSR research, including the dimensionality of CSR, the role of individual differences in influencing how employees engage with CSR, and the “dark side” of CSR [i.e., the rarely discussed potential for CSR initiatives to have negative consequences for intended (and other) beneficiaries].

This review also invites the reader to explore what is (and is not) known about micro-CSR from a person-centric and humanitarian perspective (Lefkowitz 2012, Reichman & Berry 2012, Weiss & Rupp 2011). Although scholars from many fields study CSR, we draw primarily from industrial/organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) to offer two reasons that we believe this perspective is helpful and necessary. First, the putative purpose of CSR is to “ameliorate human misery” (Margolis & Walsh 2003). Even so, most employee-focused micro-CSR studies do not assess whether this has been achieved—either for the employees studied or for the targets of the CSR interventions reported. From a purely practical standpoint, this important omission diminishes our ability to make statements about the true efficacy of CSR (beyond the financial benefits to the firm) or how CSR itself is phenomenologically experienced. Indeed, the failure to incorporate such indicators of success may render the discussions on the impact of CSR as purely speculative as we fail to tease apart the difference between mere beliefs that socially responsible corporate acts are taking place (which might or might not pair with reality) versus the effect when such acts actually occur….

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!! Pro Centric Psychology Discussion

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

• Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
• Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
• One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
• I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.

Weekly Participation

• Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
• In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
• Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
• Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.

APA Format and Writing Quality

• Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
• Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
• I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.

Use of Direct Quotes

• I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
• As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
• It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.

 

LopesWrite Policy

• For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
• Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
• Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
• Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.

Late Policy

• The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
• Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
• If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
• I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
• As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.

Communication

• Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: 
  • Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
  • Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

Pro Centric Psychology Discussion

 

Pro Centric Psychology Discussion