Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

GROUP ASSIGNMENT : STA 101

NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF AFFILIATIVE BEHAVIOUR DURING


EXPOSURE TO MILD THREATS

LECTURER’S NAME : EN FAIZ BIN ZULKIFLI


GROUP : AS1204F
NAME ID CARD

MOHD MU’IZZ BIN MOHD SHUKRI 2016326491

MUHAMMAD AZRIN BIN MD YUSOF 2016140235

MUHAMMAD AKRAM BIN ISMAEL 2016517271

MUHAMMAD FARIS BIN HAMDAN 2016144763


Acknowledgement

First, thank you Allah for the opportunity and time given and all praises to Prophet
Muhammad SAW , we successfully finished the assignment with passion and curiosity.
Thanks to The Royal Society Publishing for the published journal, “The nature and
distribution of affiliative behaviour during exposure to mild threat” which the main
reference we used in this project. Also to the journal authors, Guillaume Dezecache, Julie
Grèzes, and Christoph D. Dahl for their hardship and works on the research journal.
In addition, our great gratitude to Mr Faiz bin Zulkifli our lecturer of Introduction to
Statistics. He is the one who shared everything that he knows about statistic. Not to forget
he also guided how to collect materials for this assignment and give guidelines to
productively work on this project.
Not to mention, thanks to our friends whose selflessly shared and gave ideas on
completing this assignment. Also to our family which unfailingly pray and give moral support
during our hardship. Lastly, We thank all the people for their help directly and indirectly to
complete our assignment.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

How do humans collectively react to danger? The resurgence of terrorist attacks


around the world has shown that this question is urgent in today’s research agenda.
Given their evanescence, immediate reactions to danger are difficult to observe. As a
consequence, the exact nature of immediate collective reactions to danger remains to
be comprehensively understood. In particular, the question of whether humans
prevalently experience social or non-social drives and self-preservative or prosocial
motives when being threatened is at the cornerstone of current debates .
Although human reactions to danger are commonly characterized as antisocial and
self-preservative in nature (an assumption embraced by a large array of audiences ,
research has shown that affiliation is a main drive during exposure to danger, and
prosociality is a common response, even when people’s life is directly at risk.
Behavioural responses in such contexts have been explained by the maintenance of
social norms , the fact that affiliation is a primitive response to danger and the
emergence of a social identity among endangered individuals . However, such data are
based on post hoc reports by and/or interviews from survivors, sometimes obtained
years after the disaster took place. If laboratory experiments have shown similar
affiliation and prosocial responses in yet urged individuals, the ecological validity of
those data remain to be corroborated by real-time measures of responses to danger.
Based on these report , we manage to analyse affiliative behaviour based on the
photograph release by Haunting company which use blood gore and supernatural
element as elements of fear among individuals . Below are the photograph that show
common behaviour of some individual when they enter the haunting house:
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objective of these report is to study the affiliative behaviour when expose to
threat in the society. The statistical report is based on the photograph released by
Nightmare Fear Factory, a haunted house attraction situated in Niagara Falls. Each
photograph represent a group of people range from two to seven individuals showing
spontaneous reactions to a threatening elements. The are five variable that we can perceive
from the photograph released which are age class , group size , sex , mutual gripping and
non gripping(affiliative behaviour).
Another objective is to analyse the distribution of gripping, an affiliative behaviour
that could either be linked to -self or other- oriented protection. This can be showed by
using statistical analysis between variable of gripping and group size .
Moreover , observation of immediate response toward danger is also one of the
purpose of these report. In the society , fear are indifferent with different kind of people .
From the photograph released by Nightmare Fear Factor can be valid for some people but
there may be abnormalities of behaviour show by the individual which can be opposite
behaviour when expose to fear element promote by the haunting house . That’s why data
shown mainly in qualitative description because it involved behaviour which not easy to
predict in real time.
3.0 METHODOLOGY (DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS )

HISTOGRAM : SEX AS VARIABLE

To start building histogram , choose analyze from top menu and select descriptive statistics and
select frequencies.

Choose sex as variable and click Statistics

Tick Quartiles , Mean , Median , Mode , Sum and Std deviation and Variance . After that , click
continue
Click charts after that, it will show three options of chart chose based on your question . In this case ,
we use histogram
BAR CHART : GROUP SIZE AS VARIABLE

To start building bar chart , choose analyze from top menu and select descriptive statistics and select
frequencies.

Choose group size as variable and click Statistics

Tick Quartiles , Mean , Median , Mode , Sum and Std deviation and Variance . After that , click
continue
Click charts after that, it will show three options of chart chose based on your question . In this case ,
we use bar charts
PIE CHART : NON GRIPPING FREQUENCY

To start building pie chart , choose analyze from top menu and select descriptive statistics and select
frequencies.

Choose non-gripping as variable and click Statistics

Tick Quartiles , Mean , Median , Mode , Sum and Std deviation and Variance . After that , click
continue
Click charts after that, it will show three options of chart chose based on your question . In this case ,
we use pie charts
4.0 FINDINGS
1. ID AND AGECLASS (CORRELATION AND REGRESSION)

(Figure 4.1)
A bivariate sample consists of pairs of data (ID, age class). If we plot these pairs on the xy-
plane then we have a scatter diagram. The Linear Regression Line. Given a scatter plot, we
can draw the line that best fits the data. .Based on scatter plot in Figure 4.1, it is observed
that 3 linear straight lines will be obtained when variables age class and ID intercept each
other.
2. SEX

(figure 4.2)

The histogram shows the total sample of sex between male and female. A histogram is an
accurate representation of the distribution of numerical data. It is an estimate of the
probability distribution of a continuous variable. It differs from a bar graph, in the sense that
a bar graph relates two variables, but a histogram relates only one
3. GROUP SIZE

(figure 4.3)

Bar charts are a type of graph that are used to display and compare the number,
frequency or other measure (e.g. mean) for different discrete categories of data. For the
example, the histogram enables us to see the number of group size of the nature and
distribution of affiliative behaviour during exposure to mild threat.

Bar charts are one of the most commonly used types of graph because they are
simple to create and very easy to interpret. They are also a flexible chart type and there are
several variations of the standard bar chart including horizontal bar charts, grouped or
component charts, and stacked bar charts.

The chart is constructed such that the lengths of the different bars are proportional to
the size of the category they represent. The x-axis represents the different categories and so
has no scale. In order to emphasise the fact that the categories are discrete, a gap is left
between the bars on the x-axis. The y-axis does have a scale and this indicates the units of
measurement. The most currently of group are 2 and 4, we can conclude that people like to
cooperation between group 2 and 4.
4. NGRIPPING

(figure 4.4)
A pie chart is a circular statistical graphic, which is divided into slices to illustrate
numerical proportion. In a pie chart, the arc length of each slice, is proportional to the
quantity its represents. The pie chart 4.4 above shows the non-gripping behaviour of
people. As we can see from this chart, we can conclude most of them possessed non
gripping behaviour when dangers approached them.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Comparisons between sex- and age-groups also showed some interesting patterns,
with females showing more gripping than males on average, and with children being more
likely to grab others. It is known that females tend to adopt a tend-and-befriend strategy
when threatened instead of relying on a fight-or-flight response. Our results are consistent
with this hypothesis, as females tend to rely more strongly on gripping behaviour than
males in the study sample. Interestingly, children are the age-class with least recipients of
mutual gripping, highly suggestive of a neglect of care for younger individuals in such
arousing contexts. This may appear inconsistent with analysis of the Titanic survival records
which showed that children had a good rate of survival, probably as the result of the
permanence of social norms. Yet, our own analysis was based on more immediate and
reflex-like reactions. When time is limited, the prevalence of a social norm favouring
children and their mothers may disappear, as seen in the case of the Lusitania sinking.
Finally, fear does not become less prevalent as group size increases. One prominent view in
the evolution of social living holds that grouping is a response to perceived risk of predation
for a critical discussion.
Fearfulness (as indexed by the facial expression of the participants) does not seem to
be affected by group size in our dataset. This suggests that the potential comfort the
presence of others could confer remains limited.
How are those results interpretable in line with what we know from other sources
about human collective reactions to danger? Our results first suggest that primary reactions
to threat are of an affiliative nature. They also suggest that the distribution of affiliation
does not follow a rule of reciprocation , i.e. that others are gripped non-selectively, with the
exception of younger individuals receiving little mutual gripping. However, the graph in
these report does not correlation between ID and age class because behavioural of
individual cannot be interprete directly through numerical value. We can conclude that --
group size may affected the protection behavioural such as gripping other person cause of
fear as its frequency increase with the group size.