The Psychology of Altruism: An Unresolved Problem
... only superficial benevolence, and is basically selfishly motivated. We give in order to get. This tit-for-tat explanation, where all behavior can be attributed to a self-interested motivation is termed "egoism". Egoism, as explained by evolutionary biologists, has been adopted by other fields. For instance, the first principle of economics is that every agent is actuated by self-interest. The exchange theory in sociology holds that egoism is what really underlies seeming selflessness. Even friendship is explained as an exchange in which altruistic action is one of the traded goods. Psychological theories are basically egoistic. A person's motivation is to satisfy his or her needs. Psychologists view a desire to help as a conflict with one's real desire. The more altruistic one is, the greater is the secret greed, envy or cruelty. Social behaviorists theorize three reasons for apparent altruistic behavior: 1) we expect some reward or payment, 2) we are avoiding punishment, or 3) we wish to alleviate the pain of someone else, because their pain is distressing to us (Kohn). Studies that have demonstrated health benefits from volunteering appeal to the egoists, and seem to support their biological view. It has been shown that helping behaviors promote the production of our natural opiates, the endorphins, giving a sense of wellbeing like that experienced through exercise (Schulman). The act of helping was also found to decrease depression, and increase positive emotions. Altruistic actions benefit health by promoting the cardiovascular and immune systems, leading to a longer life. In spite of these findings, positive emotions are less understood than the negative ones ("Why We Give", Psychology Today 7/29/03). The Kitty Genovese syndrome or the "bystander effect", has been put forward by the egoism theorists to prove our intrinsic selfishness. This was observed in the case of Kitty Genovese whose 38 neighbors failed to come to her rescue, or even to call the police, while she was being stabbed to death. This syndrome does not necessarily prove the selfishness of people. The key finding about this incident was that an individual is most likely to come to another's aid if it is believed no one else can do so, also described as "diffusion of responsibility". It was also found that a crowd of people failing to help can be a distraction to a potential helper. To a bystander, it may appear that the situation is not really an emergency because no one is helping. Also, people may fail to act because they fear that they may appear foolish if help is not really required (Kohn). It seems that inaction does not necessarily result from malice or indifference, but may occur through confusion and misinterpretation of a situation. Not all researchers agree with the analysis of human nature as being only self-interested. Some believe that the egoism theorists' views cannot make sense of prosocial actions that bring no apparent satisfaction to the individual. The nonexistence of genuine altruism is questioned. It is argued that prosocial behavior goes on all the time, and that it is common to help strangers even when there is little chance that they will return the favor. How can it be explained that we frequently help those who are unrelated to us, who will never help to raise our offspring, or who will not reciprocate in any way? How does the "selfish gene" theory account for the fact that the majority of human acts of violence are directed against a close relative? It may be true that helping others can bring one pleasure, but that does not prove that people always act only to please themselves. Some researchers acknowledge that while it may never be possible to demonstrate altruism empirically, it is difficult to deny the existence of genuine altruism in some cases. Statistics showing that 90% of Americans give to charity, and that 50% do volunteer work, indicate that we are far from being an uncaring species. Even children of pre-school age can show comforting, sharing and helping. The research of Dr. Dan Batson has looked at empathy as a source of altruism, and the results of his experiments seem to indicate that we are not primarily interested in relieving our own distress, but that we can be motivated simply by a desire to help (Kohn). The belief that we are genetically determined to be aggressive and violent, has been refuted by Alfie Kohn, author of The Brighter Side of Human Nature; Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life. To the contrary, Kohn believes we may be genetically determined to be helpful and cooperative. He puts forward the concept that environment plays a huge role in developing empathy in people. He proposes that instead of studying why unhelpful people are sometimes helpful, we should be asking why helpful people are sometimes unhelpful. Kohn challenges the idea that we are natural warriors. He points out, that in order to induce soldiers to fight in a war, the draft is necessary, there must be extensive use of propaganda, and basic training is needed to dehumanize the soldiers and instill mindless obedience in them. In addition, the enemy must be dehumanized, and even then, most people will refuse to kill. Would all this be necessary if we were natural warriors? It was observed in the revealing book on World War II by Paul Fussell, The Boys Crusade; The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-1945, that the overriding motivation for bravery in battle was not hatred of the enemy and a wish to attack them. It was the desire to gain the esteem of fellow soldiers. Soldiers did not want to loose face with their fellow comrades-in-arms. If prosocial behavior is viewed as abnormal, it should not follow that the absence of empathy is widely seen as a factor in sociopathy and delinquency. Furthermore, Kohn believes that biological determinism is a dangerous concept that can lead to racism, and other stereotypes of people. He writes that in believing we are intrinsically evil, we are lead to act in intrinsically evil ways. Most notable among those who question the prevailing disbelief in the existence of genuine altruism, are Pearl and Samuel Oliner. Their landmark study was the Altruistic Personality Project. This study was done by comparing and contrasting rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust with bystanders who did not participate in rescue activity. The study included 682 individuals (406 authenticated rescuers, 126 nonrescuers, and 150 rescued survivors). The group was diversified by age, sex, socioeconomic class and country of origin. The dependent variable is a person who engaged in rescue activity. The independent variables are the possible causes for this activity. These participants were extensively interviewed with a questionnaire consisting of six sections dealing with: family, parents, childhood, and prewar, postwar and wartime situations. They were also tested with four psychological scales: the Social Responsibility Scale developed by Berkowitz and Lutterman, the Internal/External Locus of Control Scale developed by Rotter, the Self-Esteem Scale developed by Rosenberg, and the Empathy Scale developed by Mehrabian and Epstein. The Oliners' data collection and statistical procedures were rigorous. They wished to find if these rescues were genuine altruistic acts, and also, whether there were any common personality factors amongst the rescuers. They considered an altruistic act to have four features: 1) high risk for the rescuer, 2) no external rewards, 3) voluntary, and 4) directed to an outsider group (helped a persecuted person). Pearl and Samuel Oliner have stressed that, "The paths to virtue are neither uniform nor standardized" yet, in the Altruistic Personality Project, distinct parenting styles emerged in the development of altruistic traits of rescuers as opposed to non-rescuing behavior. Although there are no pure types of rescuers and non-rescuers, it was evident that rescuers tended to have close family relationships, in which parents modeled caring behavior and taught caring values. Discipline by parents of rescuers was done through reasoning, explanation and advice, with rare physical punishment. It is theorized that relying on reasoning for discipline communicates respect and trust in children. This allows a child to feel self-esteem and warmth toward others. However, the parents of rescuers set high standards of behavior with an emphasis on values such as dependability, responsibility, helpfulness, self-reliance, fairness, and honesty, frequently in a religious context. It must be noted, though, that studies cited by Alfie Kohn found no connection between religiosity and prosocial or ethical behavior. The families of rescuers emphasized that attachments with people are the source of fulfillment in life, rather than status or material success. These family relationships became the example for an inclusive view of responsibility toward humanity generally. Rescuers had learned to trust those around them, and were comfortable with people different from themselves. They tended to see their neighbors as basically good people. They were attracted to others on the basis of personal qualities rather than class, status, religion or ethnicity. Rescuers identified with others and were more likely to see others as being like themselves. They were ready to empathize, and their wartime behavior grew out of general.patterns of relating to others. Rescuers scored significantly higher on the Social Responsibility Scale, which assesses a person's attitude about helping others without anything to be gained. Rescuers and non-rescuers scored equally on the Self-Esteem Scale, indicating that self-esteem is not essential for altruistic behavior. The results of the Internal/External Locus of Control Sc...