Interesting questions. Sounds like a true/false test set, so it might be relative and up to the eyes of the beholder
1. No. It is not my job to change peoples attitudes. Everybody must change her/his attitudes for him-/herself. But I have to agree that you cannot change your behaviour without having changed your attitudes and values.
2. No, not exactly. It depends if you enjoy rewards or if you are not interested in. Sometimes people do actions from the heart on a selfless basis and they do not want a reward. But in most cases it can be said, that people awarded for their effort are more likely to make other efforts more voluntarily.
3. I think that you mean more moderate decisions in the sense of finding a mediating compromise on all parts. Yes, in a group you have partners, which need to be considered, each for their own, with all their single opinions that do not match all the time. You have to talk to come to a common agreement. As an individual you are deciding first for yourself, but even here you are not free to do or to decide without hurting the liberty of decision of others. In my eyes, regarding each aspect (in group or individual) you have to consider others in your decisions.
4. Here, I agree with you. Nowadays a lot of traps are placed for people who would like to help by criminals, so they are in fear when they are alone and less when they are in twos. But mostly people are blind-folded when something happened in the street like the three monkeys (not hear, not see, not talk) - because they are afraid of being endangered. But you need not endanger yourself. If you do, it is just so easy to grab your handy and dial the SOS or police. Even that can be called a great help without endangering yourself.
5. I do not agree on this one, because it is up to the individual and it is not up to gender.
Oh, does Google offer answers? But I guess that they as relative as mine are