Altruism is the quality of a person. This quality is diametrically opposite to selfishness. Altruist is not indifferent and ready to help even when he/she does not have any reward in return, and when he/she does not expect any gratitude (Hewstone, Stroebe& Stephenson, 1996)..
There are different theories which explain prosocial altruistic behavior, reasons and motives of this behavior, etc. For example, altruism can be explained by the fact that a person who helps other people has some external or internal reward. A businessman can improve the image of his company by doing money donation. In this case, he will have external rewards for his altruistic actions. On the other hand, a person can gain the feeling of self-respect by helping other people. In this case, a reward for such behavior will be innate one (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
Krebs conducted the experiment and found that people who are more emotionally sensitive to problems of other people will tend to help other people disinterestedly. For example, when an individual hears that someone is crying he/she will feel some anxiety and will strive to help other person. Helping the one who is crying he/she will also help himself to reduce his/her negative emotions. The natural discomfort that we experience watching the suffering of another person encourages us to get rid of it. We can overcome the discomfort either by passing an unpleasant situation or helping other person to manage a problem (Hewstone, Stroebe& Stephenson, 1996).
In 1983, people watched on television how a forest fire destroyed hundreds of homes near Melbourne (Australia). Later, when Paul Amato interested in financial and property donations, it turned out that those who were angry or indifferent, were less generous than those who experienced a spiritual discomfort (were shaken so that the sick) or empathy (compassion for the people who have remained homeless). However, many authors indicate desire to reduce psychological discomfort produced by a negative event as selfish desire (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
Batson et al. found that individuals tend to behave altruistically when they experience empathy. Researchers stimulated activation of participants` empathy by particular actions. After that participants of the experiment were exposed to observing a person in the street who asked about the help. Most of participants whose empathy had been activated previously demonstrated altruistic behavior and reacted to requests for help of a stranger in the street (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
In another experiment, participants watched the "suffering" of a young woman when she allegedly received electric shocks. During the pause, the "victim" explained the origin of her high sensitivity to electricity to experimenter and “observers”. She told that, as a child she fell on the fence, which was under an electric voltage. Sympathizing with her, the experimenter offered the way to manage this unpleasant situation: he asked observers (real participants of the experiment), if they did not agree to switch places with a young woman and take on remaining beats (Batson, 2014).
Previously, half of real participants were convinced by experimenters that the "victim" is a person who shares their moral values and interests (experimenters triggered participants` empathy). The second group of subjects were also told that their participation in the experiment was over and that they would not have to watch the "suffering of the victim," if the suffering will be extended. Nevertheless, almost all participants of the experiment, whose empathy was stimulated, expressed their willingness to take the place of the "victim" (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
Cialdini and his colleagues expressed doubt that empathetic altruistic acts are not selfish. They suggested that a person who sympathizes to sufferer begins to experience a bad mood. They managed to assure the participants of one of their experiments that mood of participants can be improved by some "more optimistic" impressions, for example by listening to a funny audio record. Under such conditions, people who experienced empathy were not particularly enthusiastic to help sufferers. The conclusion made by Cialdini and his colleague, were the next one: even feeling empathy for a victim, people will not strive to help this suferrer, if they know that they have another way to improve their bad mood (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976).
Frequently individuals help each other not because they consciously analyze benefits of their actions, but because something innate tells them they should to do so. People must help a new neighbor to settle down in a new place. People had to turn off the lights in a parked car, return lost wallet, protect their friends on a battlefield, etc. Standards are social expectations. They prescribe rules of conduct and indicate what people are obliged to do (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
Researchers identified two social norms that motivate altruism: the norm of reciprocity and the norm of social responsibility. Sociologist Alvin Gouldner claimed that the rule of reciprocity is the unique universal code of honor: to those who help us, we must help, not to cause harm.
The norm of reciprocity is most effective when people publicly react to the previously good things done for them. In laboratory experiments, as well as in everyday life, accidental or non-committal meeting are more likely to be selfish than stable relationship. But even acting anonymously, people sometimes do good deeds. In one of their experiments, Mark Watley and his colleagues found that participants of their experiment, university students were more willing to provide help to those individuals who treated them with sweets previously.
With respect to those who are clearly dependent and cannot return something good done to them - the children, the infirm, the disabled and all those who are perceived as unable to participate in the equivalent exchange, - other operating norms encourage our help. It is - the norm of social responsibility, according to which those people who need the help must be helped without regard to any compensation in the future (Hewstone, Stroebe& Stephenson, 1996).
However, people tend to act selectively and apply the social responsibility standards only to those individuals whose problem is not the result of their own negligence. If someone who needs help is a victim of circumstances, such as natural disasters, a person will tend to act socially responsible and altruistic. But if people who ask about help have created their own problems with their own hands, because they are lazy, immoral or cannot foresee the consequences of their actions, an observer will not experience influence of the norm of social responsibility. In other words, people`s reactions are directly dependent on attribution. Explaining someone`s problems as uncontrollable, dependent on circumstances, people will be more likely to help to a sufferer.
Another approach to the interpretation of altruism is based on the theory of evolution. According to the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, the quintessence of life is the preservation of the gene pool. Our genes make us behave in a way to create the conditions most favorable for their survival. People predisposed to such behavior, which will ensure the transmission of their genes to future generations.
Human genes predispose people to care for those who, like them, are carriers of their genes. Therefore, a form of self-sacrifice, which can increase the chances for survival of genes, is an attachment to own children. The parents who put their children's interests above own have a better chance to give their genes to future generations, rather than those who neglect their parental duties.
One possible explanation for altruism can be found in social exchange theory: interactions of people are directed by the "social economy." We share not only material goods and money, but also social values such as love, services, information and status. In this case people use a strategy of "minimax": individuals strive to minimize their costs and get a maximum possible compensation. According to theory of social exchange, it is not suggested that people consciously "estimate" costs and fees of their actions; this theory only admits that such explanations can predict human behavior (Hewstone, Stroebe& Stephenson, 1996).
Myers gives the example of how theory of social exchange can be applied to practice. A person who was requested to give blood will be likely to weigh the possible negative consequences of the agreement (a painful procedure, time loss, fatigue) and rejecting the request (guilt, dissatisfaction with him). Also this person will compare positive effects of both acts: the satisfaction of having helped someone, and a complimentary breakfast in the case of agreement, on the one hand and on the other - saved time, nerves and good health in the case of failure (Myers& Twenge, 2013).
During the study of donors in the state of Wisconsin, in full compliance with social exchange theory it has been experimentally confirmed that hidden calculations always go before a decision on whether to provide help or reject it. People donate more money to charity when getting something in return (for examples, sweets). Even if they do not need things they get, even if they would never buy these things, getting them is an important evidence of social exchange (Hewstone, Stroebe& Stephenson, 1996).
References
Batson, C. D. (2014). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Psychology Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: a social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of personality and social psychology, 34(5), 907.
Hewstone, M. E., Stroebe, W. E., & Stephenson, G. M. E. (1996). Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective . Blackwell Publishing
Myers, D. G., & Twenge, J. M. (2013). Helping. Social psychology. New York N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
.
