- Email: [email protected]
Altruism and Prosocial Behavior, Sociology of
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of lived small-scale media make a particularly explosive dent in the political culture of the moment. In this, their mnemonic function is arguably different from mainstream media, whose power consists in sedimenting stable definitional frameworks over time within which the interpretation of society and social change takes place. Both operations, which might be likened to the brilliantly colored tropical fish and to the coral reef, are sociologically significant.
Simpson Grinberg M 1981 ComunicacioT n Alternatia y Cambio Social. Universidad Nacional Auto! noma de Me! xico, Me! xico Sreberny-Mohammadi A, Mohammadi A 1994 Small Media, Big Reolution: Communication, Culture and the Iranian Reolution. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
See also: Adolescents: Leisure-time Activities; Art, Sociology of; Cultural Policy; Cultural Policy: Outsider Art; Internet: Psychological Perspectives; Mass Communication: Technology; Mass Media and Cultural Identity; Media and History: Cultural Concerns; Media and Social Movements; Media Ethics; Media Imperialism; Media, Uses of; Popular Culture; Television: Genres; Television: History; Television: Industry
Altruism and Prosocial Behavior, Sociology of
J. D. H. Downing
Two basic questions will be addressed in this article. One deals with the very essence of human nature, and essentially lies within the domain of philosophy: Does altruism exist? The other is an empirical social science question: How does one understand, predict, and explain positive other-oriented social action?
1. Does Altruism Exist? Bibliography Alexeyeva L 1985 Soiet Dissent: Contemporary Moements For National, Religious and Human Rights. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT Armstrong D 1981 A Trumpet To Arms: Alternatie Media in America. J. P. Tarcher, Los Angeles Aronson J 1972 Deadline For The Media: Today’s Challenges to Press, TV and Radio. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis Baldelli P 1977 Informazione e Controinformazione. G. Mazzotta, Milan Boyle D 1997 Subject To Change: Guerrilla Teleision Reisited. Oxford University Press, New York Darnton R 1995 The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Reolutionary France. W.W. Norton, New York Dowing J 2000 Radical Media: Rebellious communication and social moements. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Gilmont J-F (ed.) 1990 La ReT forme et le Lire: l’Europe de l’ImprimeT (1517–.1570). E; ditions du Cerf, Paris Habermas J 1989 The Structural Transformation Of The Public Realm. Beacon Press, Boston Hill C 1975 The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Reolution. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK Hilliard R L, Keith M C 1999 Waes of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY Kahn D, Neumaier D (eds.) 1985 Cultures in Contention. Real Comet Press, Seattle, WA Kintz L, Lesage J (eds.) 1998 Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Lenin VI 1969 What Is To Be Done? International Publishers, New York Raboy M 1984 Moements and Messages: Media and Radical Politics in QueT bec. Between The Lines, Toronto, Canada Scott J C 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Eeryday Forms of Peasant resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Shanor D R 1985 Behind the Lines: The Priate War against Soiet Censorship, 1st edn. St Martin’s Press, New York
Modern social science is founded mainly on the assumption that animals, including humans, are primarily motivated by egoism, that is, that each organism’s basic drives involve satisfying its own needs and desires. The recognition of the importance of selfinterest in human motivation goes back at least as far as the writings of Plato in the Western philosophical tradition. Various forms of this assumption are found in economic theory (e.g., classical economics), psychology (Freud’s pleasure principle, Thorndike’s law of effect), in social psychology (exchange theory), and in sociology (functionalism). At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the purest expression of this assumption is found in rational choice theory. Yet many thinkers have resisted accepting the idea that all human action is selfishly motivated. Plato and Aristotle struggled to understand the source of concern for the other that is present in friendship. Even near the time of Hobbes’ classic Leiathan, Rousseau, Hume, and Adam Smith raised doubts that egoism was the only human motivation (see Batson 1991). Smith, for example, wrote: ‘How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it’ ([1759] 1853, I.i.1.1). 1.1 Conceptualizing Altruism Many different definitions have been offered for the term ‘altruism.’ Comte, who coined the term, defined it as an unselfish desire to ‘live for others’ (Comte 1875, p. 556). Social psychologists have proposed that 411
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of altruism consists of helping actions carried out without the anticipation of rewards from external sources (Macaulay and Berkowitz 1970), while others suggest that altruistic helpers must incur some cost for their actions (e.g., Krebs 1982, Wispe! 1978). Note in both the focus on consequences for the helper rather than on inner motivation. Batson (1991) has proposed instead that altruism be defined by the individual’s motivations: ‘Altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare’ (p. 6). Batson’s definition makes it impossible to study altruism in nonhuman species. Sober and Wilson (1998) recognized the need to make a distinction between two types of altruism, ‘evolutionary altruism’ and ‘psychological altruism.’ The concepts of psychological egoism and altruism concern the motives that people have for acting as they do. The act of helping others does not count as (psychologically) altruistic unless the actor thinks of the welfare of others as an ultimate goal. In contrast, the evolutionary concept concerns the effects of behavior on survival and reproduction. Individuals who increase the fitness of others at the expense of their own fitness are (evolutionary) altruists, regardless of how, or even whether, they think or feel about the action (Sober and Wilson 1998, p. 6). They stress that, ‘Even if we restrict our attention to organisms that do have minds, we need to see that there is no one-to-one connection between egoistic and altruistic psychological motives on the one hand and selfish and altruistic fitness consequences on the other’ (p. 202). They conclude: The take-home message is that every motive can be assessed from two quite different angles. The fact that a motive produces a behavior that is evolutionarily selfish or altruistic does not settle whether the motive is psychologically egoistic or altruistic (p. 205).
Sober and Wilson (1998) do however propose that ‘an ultimate concern for the welfare of others is among the psychological mechanisms that evolved to motivate adaptive behavior’ (p. 7). They believe that both egoistic and altruistic tendencies are adaptive for survival. 1.2 Eidence for the Existence of Eolutionary Altruism Researchers have now demonstrated mathematically (Boorman and Leavitt 1980) and by means of computer simulations (Morgan 1985) that genes for evolutionary altruism can evolve and become established in populations, through one of three mechanisms. Group selection can operate if the presence of some altruists in an isolated, endogamous group leads that entire group to survive better than groups without altruists. Kin selection operates if an altruist is more likely to save kin, whose genes are shared with the altruist and thus are more likely to survive and 412
multiply. Finally, reciprocity selection works through a mechanism in which altruists are more likely to benefit each other, even if they are not related. Such a mechanism requires that bearers of altruistic genes be able to recognize each other—presumably through observation of past behavior. Sober and Wilson (1998, pp. 149–54) also devote considerable space to the discussion of group selection of cultural practices— such as social norms—as an alternative ‘evolutionary’ mechanism not involving genetic transmission by which altruistic behaviors can become established in social groups. A strong argument has been made for empathy as the prime candidate for the inherited capacity underlying psychological altruism. At least five studies going back to 1923 have demonstrated that infants as young as a few hours old are more likely to cry at the sound of another infant’s cry than at the sound of equally loud and annoying noises (Martin and Clark 1982). In addition, Matthews et al. (1981) and Rushton et al. (1986), using twin methods, found significant heritability of scores on self-report scales of altruism. 1.3 Eidence for the Existence of Psychological Altruism Sober and Wilson (1998) discuss the difficulty both of defining what psychological altruism is and of demonstrating that it exists. If an egoistic goal is defined as ‘anything one wants’ one has defined altruism out of existence. If, however, altruism is defined as having irreducible preferences that the welfare of another be enhanced, it is possible to demonstrate its existence. Within social psychology, Daniel Batson has tried to demonstrate that one can find what Sober and Wilson (1998, pp. 245–8) call ‘A over E’ (other over self ) pluralism: that there are some people who some of the time will choose the welfare of others over their own. Batson believes this happens when they feel empathy for the other: the ‘empathy–altruism hypothesis.’ For over 20 years Batson has waged academic war with several other social psychologists who espouse more egoistic models. He sets his theory against the arousal\ cost-reward model of Piliavin et al. (1981), which assumes that observing another’s problem arouses feelings of distress and helping alleviates those feelings, and the negative-state relief model (e.g., Cialdini et al. 1987). Cialdini assumes that children learn during socialization that helping others makes them feel good and that helping is thus motivated by hedonism. The war has been fought in a series of experimental skirmishes, summarized in Batson (1991). It appears that the rather modest goal has been achieved: some people, some of the time, do help out of altruism.
2. Determinants of Prosocial Behaior Whether or not there are innate tendencies to care about the welfare of others, people do engage in
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of helpful behaviors. Two terms are commonly used in the literature. ‘Prosocial behavior’ means any actions, ‘defined by society as generally beneficial to other people and to the ongoing political system’ (Piliavin et al. 1981, p. 4). This can include paying taxes, doing volunteer work, cooperating with classmates to solve a problem, giving directions on the street, or intervening in a crime. Even acts normally deemed criminal can be prosocial in context, for example, taking medicines from a drugstore destroyed by a hurricane if needed for victims of the storm. ‘Helping behavior’ refers to ‘an action that has the consequences of providing some benefit to or improving the well-being of another person’ (Schroeder et al. 1995, p. 16). Actions from which one can also benefit (such as cooperating) are not included. How is variation in prosocial behavior to be understood? Following the Lewinian equation B l f (P, E ), it is assumed that prosocial behavior is jointly determined by characteristics of the person and the environment. Thus, how individual differences in prosocial tendencies arise is first examined, and then how those tendencies combine with situational factors to influence helping behavior. 2.1 The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior Tendencies Hoffman (1990) believes that, initially, infants cannot differentiate self from other, and feel only ‘global empathy’; what happens to others is felt as happening to them. Starting at around a year, infants can differentiate self from others, but assume that others in distress feel exactly what they would feel. By age two or three, they not only understand that others can feel something different, but that a different response may be needed. By late childhood, children can experience empathy in response to knowledge of a person’s situation, without observing the distress. Zahn-Waxler et al. (1992) provide observational evidence consistent with this theorizing regarding the early stages, and Aronfreed (1970) presents evidence regarding the learning of empathy by older children. Cialdini et al. (1982) present a stage theory in which, in the presocialization stage (before 10), children do not know that others value helping, and will help only if asked. In the second stage, awareness, they learn that there are norms about helping, and that they can be rewarded for it, so they help in order to please. By around age 15, internalization occurs; helping becomes intrinsically satisfying. Some research supports these theories, which are consistent with research by Kohlberg (1985) regarding the development of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning, like helping, is initially based on external factors; as the child matures, decisions become based on inner motivations. Social learning theory also informs research on the process by which children develop prosocial behavior patterns. The use of direct rewards and punishments
(power assertion) and love withdrawal have been found to be less effective for the development of prosocial behavior than induction, that is, reasoning with the child. Observational learning is undoubtedly more important than direct teaching; both models who are physically present and those presented in the mass media can have significant effects. ‘Preaching’ altruism also has some effect, as does attributing altruistic motives to the child. Prosocial socialization can continue through adulthood, and attributional processes can be important. The ‘foot-in-the-door’ technique— asking a small favor and then returning to ask a larger one (e.g., Freedman and Fraser 1966)—is thought to have its effect through self-attribution. Similarly, regular participation in volunteer work leads individuals to internalize the role of helper. The relative importance of personality and situational factors differs depending upon the kind of helping. Episodic helping—responsiveness to a request or to the perception of a sudden need—is more influenced by the situation. Sustained helping, such as volunteering, is more influenced by socialization factors and by habits, values, and personality. Interactions between personality and situational factors have also been found. Schroeder et al. (1995) present a detailed discussion of the factors influencing the various forms of helping behavior.
2.2 Determinants of Episodic Helping Most of the empirical research on helping has used experimental methodology to study situations in which someone has a sudden need for help. Factors such as clarity and urgency of the need, the race, sex, age, or handicap of the ‘victim,’ how many potential helpers are present, and the relationship of victim and subject are manipulated. Latane! and Darley (1970) propose that the bystander goes through a five step decision process: (a) noticing something happening, (b) deciding help is needed, (c) deciding whether one personally has a responsibility to intervene, (d) choosing a course of action, and (e) executing the plan. They consistently find that the more bystanders, the lower the likelihood that any one of them will intervene (the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect). This effect can occur at two points in the decision process. If other bystanders are visible, their actions can define whether the situation requires help (step b); if they are not visible, the knowledge that they could help can influence attribution of responsibility (step c). Others (e.g., Piliavin et al. 1981) propose that part of the decision process involves calculating the costs to bystander and victim of intervening and not intervening. The nature of the emergency, relationship to the victim, and other situational factors enter into such calculations. The bystander’s personality, background, and training can also have effects, and there can be interactions of personal and situational factors. 413
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of Wilson (1976) found that safety-oriented individuals were less likely to intervene in a perceived emergency than were esteem-oriented individuals; this difference was much greater when other bystanders were present.
2.3 Determinants of Sustained Prosocial Behaiors Only recently have investigators seriously focused on long-term, planned helping behaviors such as blood donation, charitable giving, and volunteering for nonprofit organizations. Voluntary Sector has carried out surveys of charitable donation and volunteering in the USA every two years since 1988. Thus much is known descriptively about participants: They are mainly white, middle class, and express altruistic motives for their actions. Three approaches to studying long-term helping have emerged in social psychology: attempts to find ‘the altruistic personality,’ explorations of the functions served by volunteering, and analyses based on the concept of role identity. After an extensive investigation of gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust, Oliner and Oliner (1988) proposed several personality characteristics that separate them from those who did not. Penner (e.g., Penner and Finkelstein 1998) developed a personality measure with two dimensions: other-oriented empathy (feelings of responsibility and concern about others’ well-being) and helpfulness (a self-reported history of helping). Both measures distinguish volunteers from nonvolunteers, and both are related to length of service in an HIV\PWA organization and to organizational citizenship (doing optional things at work that benefit the organization). Snyder and colleagues (e.g., Clary et al. 1998) assume that altruism is only one of many motivations behind volunteering. They measure six potential motives: enhancement (to increase self-esteem), career (to increase success in one’s profession), social (to enhance friendships), values (to express who one is), protective (to escape from one’s troubles), and understanding (to learn about the world). They show that these motives are relatively stable over time, people with different motives are persuaded by parallel types of appeals (e.g., people high in social motives positively evaluate social appeals), and when experiences match motives, volunteers are more satisfied. A more sociological approach, guided by Mead’s (1934) conception of roles as patterns of social acts framed by a community and recognized as distinct social objects, emphasizes helping as role behavior. A series of studies of blood donors (Piliavin and Callero 1991) demonstrate that internalization of the blood donor role is more strongly associated with a history of blood donation than are personal and social norms. More research shows similar effects for identities tied to volunteering time and giving money (Grube and Piliavin 2000, Lee et al. 1999). 414
Finally, there are macrosociological approaches to the study of long-term helping behaviors. For example, Wilson and Musick (1997) have presented data in support of a model using both social and cultural capital as predictors of involvement in both formal and informal volunteering. Social structure also influences the distribution of resources that may be necessary for certain helping relationships. One needs money to be able to donate to a charity and medical expertise to be able to help earthquake victims. 2.4 Cross-cultural Research Little systematic research compares helping across cultures. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers compared helping in rural and urban areas, consistently finding that helping strangers (although not kin) is more likely in less dense areas around the world. In a real sense, then, urban and rural areas appear to have different ‘cultures’: Small towns are more communal or collective, while cities are more individualistic. A recent review (Ting and Piliavin 2000) examined this and many other cross-cultural studies, not only of the helping of strangers but also on the development of moral reasoning, socialization of prosocial behavior, and participation in ‘civil society.’ Although more collective societies generally show up as ‘nicer’ than individualistic societies in these comparisons, these cultures also differ in the pattern of helping. More help is provided to ingroup members than strangers in most societies, but the difference between the amount of help offered to ingroup and outgroup members is greater in communal societies. 2.5 Ciil Society Although most social scientists are still skeptical of the existence of ‘pure altruism,’ most serious researchers agree that some of the people some of the time consider the needs of others in decision making. Game theorists have discovered that in repeated prisoner’s dilemma games and public goods problems, individuals consistently behave in more co-operative or altruistic ways than expected, and some do so more than others (Liebrand 1986). Economists and political scientists, who have long believed that all motivation is selfish, have come to grips with evidence on voting and public goods behavior which indicates that this is not true (Mansbridge 1990, Clark 1998). See also: Adulthood: Prosocial Behavior and Empathy; Altruism and Self-interest; Attitudes and Behavior; Cooperation and Competition, Psychology of; Cooperation: Sociological Aspects; Darwinism: Social; Moral Sentiments in Society; Motivation and Actions, Psychology of; Prosocial Behavior and Empathy: Developmental Processes; Race and Gender Intersections; Sociobiology: Overview
Altruism and Self-interest
Bibliography Aronfreed J 1970 Socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In: Macauley J, Berkowitz L (eds.) Altruism and Helping Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 103–23 Batson C D 1991 The Altruism Question. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Boorman S A, Leavitt P R 1980 The Genetics of Altruism. Academic Press, New York Cialdini R B, Kenrick D T, Baumann D J 1982 Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults. In: Eisenberg N (ed.) The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 339–59 Cialdini R B, Schaller M, Houlihan D, Arps K, Fultz J, Beamen A L 1987 Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 749–58 Clark J 1998 Fairness in public good provision: An investigation of preferences for equality and proportionality. Canadian Journal of Economics 31: 708–29 Clary E G, Snyder M, Ridge R D, Copeland J, Stukas A A, Haugen J, Miene P 1998 Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1516–30 Comte I A 1875 System of Positie Polity. Longmans, Green, London, Vol. 1 Darley J, Latane! B M 1970 The Unresponsie Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York Freedman J L, Fraser S C 1966 Compliance without pressure: The foot in the door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 195–202 Grube J, Piliavin J A 2000 Role identity and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1108–19 Hoffman M L 1990 Empathy and justice motivation. Motiation and Emotion 14: 151–71 Kohlberg L 1985 The Psychology of Moral Deelopment. Harper and Row, San Francisco, CA Krebs D L 1982 Altruism—A rational approach. In: Eisenberg N (ed.) The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 53–76 Lee L, Piliavin J A, Call V R A 1999 Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly 62: 276–90 Liebrand W B G 1986 The ubiquity of social values in social dilemmas. In: Wilke H A M, Messick D M, Rutte C G (eds.) Experimental Social Dilemmas. Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Macaulay J, Berkowitz L 1970 Altruism and Helping Behaior. Academic Press, New York Mansbridge J (ed.) 1990 Beyond Self-interest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Martin G B, Clark III R D 1982 Distress crying in infants: Species and peer specificity. Deelopmental Psychology 18: 3–9 Matthews K A, Batson C D, Horn J, Rosenman R H 1981 ‘Principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others …’: The heritability of empathic concern for others. Journal of Personality 49: 237–47 Mead G H 1934 Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Morgan C J 1985 Natural selection for altruism in structured populations. Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 211–18 Oliner P M, Oliner S P 1995 Toward a Caring Society: Ideas into Action. Praeger, Westport, CN
Oliner S P, Oliner P M 1988 The Altruistic Personality. Free Press, New York Penner L A, Finkelstein M A 1998 Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 525–37 Piliavin J A, Callero P L 1991 Giing Blood: The Deelopment of an Altruistic Identity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD Piliavin J A, Charng H-W 1990 Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Reiew of Sociology 16: 27–65 Piliavin J A, Dovidio J F, Gaertner S, Clark III R D 1981 Emergency Interention. Academic Press, New York Rushton J P, Fulker D W, Neale M C, Nias D K B, Eysenck H J 1986 Altruism and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 1192–8 Schroeder D A, Penner L A, Dovidio J F, Piliavin J A 1995 The Psychology of Helping and Altruism: Problems and Puzzles. McGraw-Hill, New York Smith A [1759] 1853 The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Henry G. Bohn, London Sober E, Wilson D S 1998 Unto Others: The Eolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behaior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Ting J-C, Piliavin J A 2000 Altruism in comparative international perspective. In: Phillips J, Chapman B, Stevens D (eds.) Between State and Market: Essays on Charities Law and Policy in Canada. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, PQ, pp. 51–105 Wilson J P 1976 Motivation, modeling, and altruism: A person x situation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34: 1078–86 Wilson J, Musick M 1997 Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Reiew 62: 694–713 Wispe! L G (ed.) 1978 Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles. Academic Press, New York Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M 1992 Development of concern for others. Deelopmental Psychology 28: 126–36
J. A. Piliavin Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Altruism and Self-interest Altruism was first used circa 1853 by Auguste Comte. French altruisme—another; Italian Altrui— somebody else, what is another’s; Latin alteri huic—to this other.
1. Definition Altruism is behavior intended to benefit another, even when this action risks possible sacrifice to the welfare 415
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7
Simpson Grinberg M 1981 ComunicacioT n Alternatia y Cambio Social. Universidad Nacional Auto! noma de Me! xico, Me! xico Sreberny-Mohammadi A, Mohammadi A 1994 Small Media, Big Reolution: Communication, Culture and the Iranian Reolution. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
See also: Adolescents: Leisure-time Activities; Art, Sociology of; Cultural Policy; Cultural Policy: Outsider Art; Internet: Psychological Perspectives; Mass Communication: Technology; Mass Media and Cultural Identity; Media and History: Cultural Concerns; Media and Social Movements; Media Ethics; Media Imperialism; Media, Uses of; Popular Culture; Television: Genres; Television: History; Television: Industry
Altruism and Prosocial Behavior, Sociology of
J. D. H. Downing
Two basic questions will be addressed in this article. One deals with the very essence of human nature, and essentially lies within the domain of philosophy: Does altruism exist? The other is an empirical social science question: How does one understand, predict, and explain positive other-oriented social action?
1. Does Altruism Exist? Bibliography Alexeyeva L 1985 Soiet Dissent: Contemporary Moements For National, Religious and Human Rights. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT Armstrong D 1981 A Trumpet To Arms: Alternatie Media in America. J. P. Tarcher, Los Angeles Aronson J 1972 Deadline For The Media: Today’s Challenges to Press, TV and Radio. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis Baldelli P 1977 Informazione e Controinformazione. G. Mazzotta, Milan Boyle D 1997 Subject To Change: Guerrilla Teleision Reisited. Oxford University Press, New York Darnton R 1995 The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Reolutionary France. W.W. Norton, New York Dowing J 2000 Radical Media: Rebellious communication and social moements. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Gilmont J-F (ed.) 1990 La ReT forme et le Lire: l’Europe de l’ImprimeT (1517–.1570). E; ditions du Cerf, Paris Habermas J 1989 The Structural Transformation Of The Public Realm. Beacon Press, Boston Hill C 1975 The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Reolution. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK Hilliard R L, Keith M C 1999 Waes of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY Kahn D, Neumaier D (eds.) 1985 Cultures in Contention. Real Comet Press, Seattle, WA Kintz L, Lesage J (eds.) 1998 Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Lenin VI 1969 What Is To Be Done? International Publishers, New York Raboy M 1984 Moements and Messages: Media and Radical Politics in QueT bec. Between The Lines, Toronto, Canada Scott J C 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Eeryday Forms of Peasant resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Shanor D R 1985 Behind the Lines: The Priate War against Soiet Censorship, 1st edn. St Martin’s Press, New York
Modern social science is founded mainly on the assumption that animals, including humans, are primarily motivated by egoism, that is, that each organism’s basic drives involve satisfying its own needs and desires. The recognition of the importance of selfinterest in human motivation goes back at least as far as the writings of Plato in the Western philosophical tradition. Various forms of this assumption are found in economic theory (e.g., classical economics), psychology (Freud’s pleasure principle, Thorndike’s law of effect), in social psychology (exchange theory), and in sociology (functionalism). At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the purest expression of this assumption is found in rational choice theory. Yet many thinkers have resisted accepting the idea that all human action is selfishly motivated. Plato and Aristotle struggled to understand the source of concern for the other that is present in friendship. Even near the time of Hobbes’ classic Leiathan, Rousseau, Hume, and Adam Smith raised doubts that egoism was the only human motivation (see Batson 1991). Smith, for example, wrote: ‘How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it’ ([1759] 1853, I.i.1.1). 1.1 Conceptualizing Altruism Many different definitions have been offered for the term ‘altruism.’ Comte, who coined the term, defined it as an unselfish desire to ‘live for others’ (Comte 1875, p. 556). Social psychologists have proposed that 411
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of altruism consists of helping actions carried out without the anticipation of rewards from external sources (Macaulay and Berkowitz 1970), while others suggest that altruistic helpers must incur some cost for their actions (e.g., Krebs 1982, Wispe! 1978). Note in both the focus on consequences for the helper rather than on inner motivation. Batson (1991) has proposed instead that altruism be defined by the individual’s motivations: ‘Altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare’ (p. 6). Batson’s definition makes it impossible to study altruism in nonhuman species. Sober and Wilson (1998) recognized the need to make a distinction between two types of altruism, ‘evolutionary altruism’ and ‘psychological altruism.’ The concepts of psychological egoism and altruism concern the motives that people have for acting as they do. The act of helping others does not count as (psychologically) altruistic unless the actor thinks of the welfare of others as an ultimate goal. In contrast, the evolutionary concept concerns the effects of behavior on survival and reproduction. Individuals who increase the fitness of others at the expense of their own fitness are (evolutionary) altruists, regardless of how, or even whether, they think or feel about the action (Sober and Wilson 1998, p. 6). They stress that, ‘Even if we restrict our attention to organisms that do have minds, we need to see that there is no one-to-one connection between egoistic and altruistic psychological motives on the one hand and selfish and altruistic fitness consequences on the other’ (p. 202). They conclude: The take-home message is that every motive can be assessed from two quite different angles. The fact that a motive produces a behavior that is evolutionarily selfish or altruistic does not settle whether the motive is psychologically egoistic or altruistic (p. 205).
Sober and Wilson (1998) do however propose that ‘an ultimate concern for the welfare of others is among the psychological mechanisms that evolved to motivate adaptive behavior’ (p. 7). They believe that both egoistic and altruistic tendencies are adaptive for survival. 1.2 Eidence for the Existence of Eolutionary Altruism Researchers have now demonstrated mathematically (Boorman and Leavitt 1980) and by means of computer simulations (Morgan 1985) that genes for evolutionary altruism can evolve and become established in populations, through one of three mechanisms. Group selection can operate if the presence of some altruists in an isolated, endogamous group leads that entire group to survive better than groups without altruists. Kin selection operates if an altruist is more likely to save kin, whose genes are shared with the altruist and thus are more likely to survive and 412
multiply. Finally, reciprocity selection works through a mechanism in which altruists are more likely to benefit each other, even if they are not related. Such a mechanism requires that bearers of altruistic genes be able to recognize each other—presumably through observation of past behavior. Sober and Wilson (1998, pp. 149–54) also devote considerable space to the discussion of group selection of cultural practices— such as social norms—as an alternative ‘evolutionary’ mechanism not involving genetic transmission by which altruistic behaviors can become established in social groups. A strong argument has been made for empathy as the prime candidate for the inherited capacity underlying psychological altruism. At least five studies going back to 1923 have demonstrated that infants as young as a few hours old are more likely to cry at the sound of another infant’s cry than at the sound of equally loud and annoying noises (Martin and Clark 1982). In addition, Matthews et al. (1981) and Rushton et al. (1986), using twin methods, found significant heritability of scores on self-report scales of altruism. 1.3 Eidence for the Existence of Psychological Altruism Sober and Wilson (1998) discuss the difficulty both of defining what psychological altruism is and of demonstrating that it exists. If an egoistic goal is defined as ‘anything one wants’ one has defined altruism out of existence. If, however, altruism is defined as having irreducible preferences that the welfare of another be enhanced, it is possible to demonstrate its existence. Within social psychology, Daniel Batson has tried to demonstrate that one can find what Sober and Wilson (1998, pp. 245–8) call ‘A over E’ (other over self ) pluralism: that there are some people who some of the time will choose the welfare of others over their own. Batson believes this happens when they feel empathy for the other: the ‘empathy–altruism hypothesis.’ For over 20 years Batson has waged academic war with several other social psychologists who espouse more egoistic models. He sets his theory against the arousal\ cost-reward model of Piliavin et al. (1981), which assumes that observing another’s problem arouses feelings of distress and helping alleviates those feelings, and the negative-state relief model (e.g., Cialdini et al. 1987). Cialdini assumes that children learn during socialization that helping others makes them feel good and that helping is thus motivated by hedonism. The war has been fought in a series of experimental skirmishes, summarized in Batson (1991). It appears that the rather modest goal has been achieved: some people, some of the time, do help out of altruism.
2. Determinants of Prosocial Behaior Whether or not there are innate tendencies to care about the welfare of others, people do engage in
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of helpful behaviors. Two terms are commonly used in the literature. ‘Prosocial behavior’ means any actions, ‘defined by society as generally beneficial to other people and to the ongoing political system’ (Piliavin et al. 1981, p. 4). This can include paying taxes, doing volunteer work, cooperating with classmates to solve a problem, giving directions on the street, or intervening in a crime. Even acts normally deemed criminal can be prosocial in context, for example, taking medicines from a drugstore destroyed by a hurricane if needed for victims of the storm. ‘Helping behavior’ refers to ‘an action that has the consequences of providing some benefit to or improving the well-being of another person’ (Schroeder et al. 1995, p. 16). Actions from which one can also benefit (such as cooperating) are not included. How is variation in prosocial behavior to be understood? Following the Lewinian equation B l f (P, E ), it is assumed that prosocial behavior is jointly determined by characteristics of the person and the environment. Thus, how individual differences in prosocial tendencies arise is first examined, and then how those tendencies combine with situational factors to influence helping behavior. 2.1 The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior Tendencies Hoffman (1990) believes that, initially, infants cannot differentiate self from other, and feel only ‘global empathy’; what happens to others is felt as happening to them. Starting at around a year, infants can differentiate self from others, but assume that others in distress feel exactly what they would feel. By age two or three, they not only understand that others can feel something different, but that a different response may be needed. By late childhood, children can experience empathy in response to knowledge of a person’s situation, without observing the distress. Zahn-Waxler et al. (1992) provide observational evidence consistent with this theorizing regarding the early stages, and Aronfreed (1970) presents evidence regarding the learning of empathy by older children. Cialdini et al. (1982) present a stage theory in which, in the presocialization stage (before 10), children do not know that others value helping, and will help only if asked. In the second stage, awareness, they learn that there are norms about helping, and that they can be rewarded for it, so they help in order to please. By around age 15, internalization occurs; helping becomes intrinsically satisfying. Some research supports these theories, which are consistent with research by Kohlberg (1985) regarding the development of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning, like helping, is initially based on external factors; as the child matures, decisions become based on inner motivations. Social learning theory also informs research on the process by which children develop prosocial behavior patterns. The use of direct rewards and punishments
(power assertion) and love withdrawal have been found to be less effective for the development of prosocial behavior than induction, that is, reasoning with the child. Observational learning is undoubtedly more important than direct teaching; both models who are physically present and those presented in the mass media can have significant effects. ‘Preaching’ altruism also has some effect, as does attributing altruistic motives to the child. Prosocial socialization can continue through adulthood, and attributional processes can be important. The ‘foot-in-the-door’ technique— asking a small favor and then returning to ask a larger one (e.g., Freedman and Fraser 1966)—is thought to have its effect through self-attribution. Similarly, regular participation in volunteer work leads individuals to internalize the role of helper. The relative importance of personality and situational factors differs depending upon the kind of helping. Episodic helping—responsiveness to a request or to the perception of a sudden need—is more influenced by the situation. Sustained helping, such as volunteering, is more influenced by socialization factors and by habits, values, and personality. Interactions between personality and situational factors have also been found. Schroeder et al. (1995) present a detailed discussion of the factors influencing the various forms of helping behavior.
2.2 Determinants of Episodic Helping Most of the empirical research on helping has used experimental methodology to study situations in which someone has a sudden need for help. Factors such as clarity and urgency of the need, the race, sex, age, or handicap of the ‘victim,’ how many potential helpers are present, and the relationship of victim and subject are manipulated. Latane! and Darley (1970) propose that the bystander goes through a five step decision process: (a) noticing something happening, (b) deciding help is needed, (c) deciding whether one personally has a responsibility to intervene, (d) choosing a course of action, and (e) executing the plan. They consistently find that the more bystanders, the lower the likelihood that any one of them will intervene (the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect). This effect can occur at two points in the decision process. If other bystanders are visible, their actions can define whether the situation requires help (step b); if they are not visible, the knowledge that they could help can influence attribution of responsibility (step c). Others (e.g., Piliavin et al. 1981) propose that part of the decision process involves calculating the costs to bystander and victim of intervening and not intervening. The nature of the emergency, relationship to the victim, and other situational factors enter into such calculations. The bystander’s personality, background, and training can also have effects, and there can be interactions of personal and situational factors. 413
Altruism and Prosocial Behaior, Sociology of Wilson (1976) found that safety-oriented individuals were less likely to intervene in a perceived emergency than were esteem-oriented individuals; this difference was much greater when other bystanders were present.
2.3 Determinants of Sustained Prosocial Behaiors Only recently have investigators seriously focused on long-term, planned helping behaviors such as blood donation, charitable giving, and volunteering for nonprofit organizations. Voluntary Sector has carried out surveys of charitable donation and volunteering in the USA every two years since 1988. Thus much is known descriptively about participants: They are mainly white, middle class, and express altruistic motives for their actions. Three approaches to studying long-term helping have emerged in social psychology: attempts to find ‘the altruistic personality,’ explorations of the functions served by volunteering, and analyses based on the concept of role identity. After an extensive investigation of gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust, Oliner and Oliner (1988) proposed several personality characteristics that separate them from those who did not. Penner (e.g., Penner and Finkelstein 1998) developed a personality measure with two dimensions: other-oriented empathy (feelings of responsibility and concern about others’ well-being) and helpfulness (a self-reported history of helping). Both measures distinguish volunteers from nonvolunteers, and both are related to length of service in an HIV\PWA organization and to organizational citizenship (doing optional things at work that benefit the organization). Snyder and colleagues (e.g., Clary et al. 1998) assume that altruism is only one of many motivations behind volunteering. They measure six potential motives: enhancement (to increase self-esteem), career (to increase success in one’s profession), social (to enhance friendships), values (to express who one is), protective (to escape from one’s troubles), and understanding (to learn about the world). They show that these motives are relatively stable over time, people with different motives are persuaded by parallel types of appeals (e.g., people high in social motives positively evaluate social appeals), and when experiences match motives, volunteers are more satisfied. A more sociological approach, guided by Mead’s (1934) conception of roles as patterns of social acts framed by a community and recognized as distinct social objects, emphasizes helping as role behavior. A series of studies of blood donors (Piliavin and Callero 1991) demonstrate that internalization of the blood donor role is more strongly associated with a history of blood donation than are personal and social norms. More research shows similar effects for identities tied to volunteering time and giving money (Grube and Piliavin 2000, Lee et al. 1999). 414
Finally, there are macrosociological approaches to the study of long-term helping behaviors. For example, Wilson and Musick (1997) have presented data in support of a model using both social and cultural capital as predictors of involvement in both formal and informal volunteering. Social structure also influences the distribution of resources that may be necessary for certain helping relationships. One needs money to be able to donate to a charity and medical expertise to be able to help earthquake victims. 2.4 Cross-cultural Research Little systematic research compares helping across cultures. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers compared helping in rural and urban areas, consistently finding that helping strangers (although not kin) is more likely in less dense areas around the world. In a real sense, then, urban and rural areas appear to have different ‘cultures’: Small towns are more communal or collective, while cities are more individualistic. A recent review (Ting and Piliavin 2000) examined this and many other cross-cultural studies, not only of the helping of strangers but also on the development of moral reasoning, socialization of prosocial behavior, and participation in ‘civil society.’ Although more collective societies generally show up as ‘nicer’ than individualistic societies in these comparisons, these cultures also differ in the pattern of helping. More help is provided to ingroup members than strangers in most societies, but the difference between the amount of help offered to ingroup and outgroup members is greater in communal societies. 2.5 Ciil Society Although most social scientists are still skeptical of the existence of ‘pure altruism,’ most serious researchers agree that some of the people some of the time consider the needs of others in decision making. Game theorists have discovered that in repeated prisoner’s dilemma games and public goods problems, individuals consistently behave in more co-operative or altruistic ways than expected, and some do so more than others (Liebrand 1986). Economists and political scientists, who have long believed that all motivation is selfish, have come to grips with evidence on voting and public goods behavior which indicates that this is not true (Mansbridge 1990, Clark 1998). See also: Adulthood: Prosocial Behavior and Empathy; Altruism and Self-interest; Attitudes and Behavior; Cooperation and Competition, Psychology of; Cooperation: Sociological Aspects; Darwinism: Social; Moral Sentiments in Society; Motivation and Actions, Psychology of; Prosocial Behavior and Empathy: Developmental Processes; Race and Gender Intersections; Sociobiology: Overview
Altruism and Self-interest
Bibliography Aronfreed J 1970 Socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In: Macauley J, Berkowitz L (eds.) Altruism and Helping Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 103–23 Batson C D 1991 The Altruism Question. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Boorman S A, Leavitt P R 1980 The Genetics of Altruism. Academic Press, New York Cialdini R B, Kenrick D T, Baumann D J 1982 Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults. In: Eisenberg N (ed.) The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 339–59 Cialdini R B, Schaller M, Houlihan D, Arps K, Fultz J, Beamen A L 1987 Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 749–58 Clark J 1998 Fairness in public good provision: An investigation of preferences for equality and proportionality. Canadian Journal of Economics 31: 708–29 Clary E G, Snyder M, Ridge R D, Copeland J, Stukas A A, Haugen J, Miene P 1998 Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1516–30 Comte I A 1875 System of Positie Polity. Longmans, Green, London, Vol. 1 Darley J, Latane! B M 1970 The Unresponsie Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York Freedman J L, Fraser S C 1966 Compliance without pressure: The foot in the door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 195–202 Grube J, Piliavin J A 2000 Role identity and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1108–19 Hoffman M L 1990 Empathy and justice motivation. Motiation and Emotion 14: 151–71 Kohlberg L 1985 The Psychology of Moral Deelopment. Harper and Row, San Francisco, CA Krebs D L 1982 Altruism—A rational approach. In: Eisenberg N (ed.) The Deelopment of Prosocial Behaior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 53–76 Lee L, Piliavin J A, Call V R A 1999 Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly 62: 276–90 Liebrand W B G 1986 The ubiquity of social values in social dilemmas. In: Wilke H A M, Messick D M, Rutte C G (eds.) Experimental Social Dilemmas. Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Macaulay J, Berkowitz L 1970 Altruism and Helping Behaior. Academic Press, New York Mansbridge J (ed.) 1990 Beyond Self-interest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Martin G B, Clark III R D 1982 Distress crying in infants: Species and peer specificity. Deelopmental Psychology 18: 3–9 Matthews K A, Batson C D, Horn J, Rosenman R H 1981 ‘Principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others …’: The heritability of empathic concern for others. Journal of Personality 49: 237–47 Mead G H 1934 Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Morgan C J 1985 Natural selection for altruism in structured populations. Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 211–18 Oliner P M, Oliner S P 1995 Toward a Caring Society: Ideas into Action. Praeger, Westport, CN
Oliner S P, Oliner P M 1988 The Altruistic Personality. Free Press, New York Penner L A, Finkelstein M A 1998 Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 525–37 Piliavin J A, Callero P L 1991 Giing Blood: The Deelopment of an Altruistic Identity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD Piliavin J A, Charng H-W 1990 Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Reiew of Sociology 16: 27–65 Piliavin J A, Dovidio J F, Gaertner S, Clark III R D 1981 Emergency Interention. Academic Press, New York Rushton J P, Fulker D W, Neale M C, Nias D K B, Eysenck H J 1986 Altruism and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 1192–8 Schroeder D A, Penner L A, Dovidio J F, Piliavin J A 1995 The Psychology of Helping and Altruism: Problems and Puzzles. McGraw-Hill, New York Smith A [1759] 1853 The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Henry G. Bohn, London Sober E, Wilson D S 1998 Unto Others: The Eolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behaior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Ting J-C, Piliavin J A 2000 Altruism in comparative international perspective. In: Phillips J, Chapman B, Stevens D (eds.) Between State and Market: Essays on Charities Law and Policy in Canada. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, PQ, pp. 51–105 Wilson J P 1976 Motivation, modeling, and altruism: A person x situation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34: 1078–86 Wilson J, Musick M 1997 Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Reiew 62: 694–713 Wispe! L G (ed.) 1978 Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles. Academic Press, New York Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M 1992 Development of concern for others. Deelopmental Psychology 28: 126–36
J. A. Piliavin Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Altruism and Self-interest Altruism was first used circa 1853 by Auguste Comte. French altruisme—another; Italian Altrui— somebody else, what is another’s; Latin alteri huic—to this other.
1. Definition Altruism is behavior intended to benefit another, even when this action risks possible sacrifice to the welfare 415
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7