Located outside Target store location
The observation is a study of altruistic behavior of adults toward strangers. One goal in the study is to determine if the presence of an audience motivates a person to be charitable. Hudson and Bruckman (2004) theorized an individual of a particular personality will respond more to the opportunity to participate in a charitable contribution if others are aware of the donation. This may be evidenced in a donation when the plate is passed n church when a person feels others are watching. Some religious organizations include an envelope to conceal the amount of the donation. In this way, the individual is acknowledged as donating without the people around knowing the extent of his gift. Another instance is putting change into the Salvation Army kettle outside a store. Not only do other shoppers coming in and out of the store have the opportunity to see the act, the employee standing at the kettle acknowledges the donation no matter how large or small. By including small value coins in the gift, a satisfying clatter accompanies the gift.
Another goal is to try to discern if the individual acted spontaneously in response to a personal value or hesitated to evaluate the potential cost of the action. A person who does not hesitate to assist another person in need has had the morality of the act instilled into him apart from determining if there is an advantage for him. An example of this is presented in this paper. The cost of an action may be loss of time, hesitation to become involved, possible liability if a lawsuit ensues, or other potentially detrimental outcome for him (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, and Neuberg, 1997).
Research Question
Are acts of altruism influenced by the presence of others or is the incidence of charity based on personal philosophy evidenced strictly by observation?
When a setting for charitable acts alternates between unobserved and observed, does the incidence increase, decrease, or remain the same? If the donation kettle outside the door is unattended but there is still foot traffic, is the incidence of donations the same as when an attendant is present? If there is no attendant present and no foot traffic, what is the incidence of giving? If there is a child present, is the adult more likely to promote altruism by encouraging the child to make a donation? We limited observations to adults in the age range of having small children to observe familial impact on altruistic behavior. If a person does not donate, does he avoid eye contact with the attendant, make an apologetic gesture, or offer a reason for not participating?
Introduction
“Altruism” is defined as an unselfishness, the principle of concern for the welfare of others (Etymonline.com. 2014). In terms of an ethical doctrine, it is the belief a person is morally obligated to offer assistance when needed. In a study at Duke University conducted by Tankersley, Stowe, and Huettel (2007), altruism is based more on how a person’s perception of the world rather than their actions. The book The Compass of Pleasure (Linden 2011) concurs with the idea there are interconnected areas in the brain called “medial forebrain pleasure circuits” and the “posterior temporal cortex”. In the medial forebrain pleasure circuits, an altruistic act is performed because it makes the person feel good about the act. However, charitable acts stimulating the posterior temporal cortex differentiated between personal gain and the benefit to someone else. In other words, activities determined to result in pleasure related to personal benefit and those related to the benefit of someone else stimulated different areas of the brain.
These reactions in the brain are different in individuals who experience pleasure related to benefits from those who perform altruistic acts when no one is aware of them. This is the reason why observations were set outside a retail store with a donation kettle attended most of the time by an employee of the charity. It allowed the opportunity to evaluate unobserved, casually observed, and actively observed giving.
The concept of “psychological egoism” states any action is evaluated by whether it benefits the individual, even if the action is classified as altruistic. In that light, true altruism cannot exist because even if the act is not observed, recorded, or acknowledged there is still the resulting personal sense of self-worth or oneness (McConnell, 1978).
Observations
Observations took place outside a Target store with a donation kettle located at the store entrance. The study was originally to evaluate donations of cash at the kettle and the effect of the presence or lack of presence of other people. However, an incident took place as the observations were ending that offered additional insight to altruistic acts.
A tally was kept of the types of presence of onlookers: no onlookers, only the attendant present, the attendant and other onlookers present. We noted the behavior of the observed person if he did not give a donation when the attendant was present.We also included observations when the adult had a small child present.
Not surprisingly, there was a higher incidence of donations when there was an attendant present. The attendants ring a bell, attempt to make eye contact, and call out cheerful greetings. It is difficult to pass by without an acknowledgement. A substantial number of people stopped when the attendant was present and either donated money already in their hand or pulled money from pockets or purses. It is unknown whether the customers knew they would pass the kettle on their way out and kept their change in their hand.
If the attendant was present, regardless of the presence of foot traffic, an adult with a child would usually stop to donate. Even if the adult was not indicating they were going to stop, the child would prompt them to. Whether this was due to the appearance of the attendant with his bell and smile or whether the child was already indoctrinated to altruistic behavior associated with the kettle, the adult was able to locate at least a small amount of change for the child or children to put in the container.
If a person did not make a contribution, they usually did not make eye contact. They deliberately moved away from the attendant or hurried by. Sometimes, they became engrossed in a conversation or use of a cell phone. This behavior seems to indicate embarrassment for not donating and a violation of their personal philosophy. Occasionally, a person not contributing would hold up their hands in a helpless gesture or even speak to the attendant with a smile. These people did not express any embarrassment, probably because they did not have access to money and declining to donate was beyond their control. This would relieve them of the responsibility of making the choice to donate or not.
Finally, donations to the kettle were practically nonexistent when there was no attendant and no foot traffic. This would indicate observation acts as a stimulus to charitable donating. Even when is child or children are with the adult, he stopped only twice during the observation period to make a donation.
Another example of an act of altruism occurred when we stopped the observations to enter the store. We observed an elderly woman struggling to exit through the doors. She was maneuvering a walker, bending over it for support. As she was coming out, a middle-aged woman opened the same door to enter; she was accompanied by two elementary-school aged girls. She held the door for the woman and, when the handicapped woman had progressed a few slow steps she frowned, left her children at the door, and caught up to the older woman. “Can I help you get to your car?” she asked. “No, my husband’s right here.” A man was stepping around the front of a truck in a handicapped parking space and was walking toward his wife. The helping woman returned to her children and entered the store.
In the situation observed, the woman frowned as the handicapped woman passed her. She appeared to be annoyed with herself that she had simply opened the door for her without offering more assistance. The children did not respond in any way, but they were observing the behavior of their mother as she set an example of assistance to someone she didn’t know. The woman with the walker did not make eye contact or thank her, indicating she was irritated either at the need for assistance, the fact that the woman helping waited so long to do so, or with her husband for not being there when she needed him. My friend and I were passive participants in that the episode was over before we could react; our impressions of the incident were admiration for the woman to offer, and a slight embarrassment at our lack of involvement.
There were no other people present at the time of the incident. Even the attendant for the kettle was absent. The handicapped woman did not have far to go, and her husband was there to insure she arrived at her car without injury. She was incapacitated enough that mobility was difficult, even with the walker. She hesitated and relied on the walker for support. She looked directly at the ground, looking for cracks or other obstacles to her safety. Her attention was so intent she barely glanced at the woman offering assistance.
The husband hurried toward her. He may have been delayed and was worried his wife was moving toward the vehicle without assistance. He may have been upset he was not there for her, and perhaps worried she would be angry with him. He may also have been relieved the woman helping was there in case he did not get to his wife in time to prevent her falling.
Although it was apart from the scenarios of altruism in the presence or absence of observers, this incident allowed for application of the information learned in the research for this paper. The woman automatically opened the door, but it took a moment for realization this was not sufficient to meet her personal philosophy. It also raised another question as to the responses some people have to a perception they require assistance. But that would be the topic for a different paper.
Results
Based on personal observations and available research on the topic of psychological egoism, the result points to evidence that a person is more likely to perform an altruistic act in the presence of others. It doesn’t seem to matter if the presence is noted or not, the person feels a social pressure for approval by acting in a positive manner. Also, the presence of a child encourages action. The adult may want to set an example or the child as an audience for approval could be a factor. In the example of assisting a handicapped person, the presence of an audience did not seem to have any impact; the woman did not apparently take the time to notice or consider if anyone was watching. Even her reaction to her children was to walk away from then without a glance or word, perhaps confident they would stand and wait on her return.
The observations conducted for the purpose of this paper, with the exception of the example with the handicapped woman, involved an individual’s transfer of his money to another. Monetary altruism is more difficult for people with economic struggles. If the opportunity for actions involving service were available, incidences may increase among populations with lower income.
Charitable giving gives an individual completion of a sense of personal responsibility. In the case of the woman helping the handicapped person, the sense of responsibility went beyond opening the door and into the realm of assisting the woman to her car. Her apparent irritation with herself may have been due to her realization she needed to think about helping without automatically realizing the need. This indicates a deep-rooted sense of altruism that, while she may derive satisfaction on reflection, the act itself was performed without hesitation or contemplation.
References
Norman J. Brown (1979). Psychological Egoism Revisited. Philosophy, 54, pp 293-309.
doi:10.1017/S0031819100048725.
Cialdini, Robert B., Brown, S., Lewis, B., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. (1997). Reinterpreting the
Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One Into One Equals Oneness. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 73(3), 481-494.
Etymonline.com. (2014). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 11 December 2014, from
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=altruism&searchmode=n
one
Hudson, J., & Bruckman, A. (2004). The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of
Participation. Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 13(2), 165-195.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2
Linden, D. (2011). The compass of pleasure. New York: Viking.
McConnell, T. (1978). The argument from psychological egoism to ethical egoism. Australasian
Post, S. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: it’s good to be good. International Journal Of
Behavioral Medicine, 12(2), 66-77. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4
Psychologytoday.com. (2014). This Is Your Brain on Charitable Giving. Retrieved 11 December
2014, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compass-pleasure/201108/is-
Tankersley, D., Stowe, C., & Huettel, S. (2007). Altruism is associated with an increased neural
response to agency. Nature Neuroscience, 10(2), 150-151. doi:10.1038/nn1833
Abstract 1
Altruism, Happiness, and Health: It’s Good to Be Good
Stephen G. Post
Abstract: Altruistic (other-regarding) emotions and behaviors are associated with greater
well-being, health, and longevity. This article presents a summary and assessment of existing research data on altruism and its relation to mental and physical health. It suggests several complimentary interpretive frameworks, including evolutionary biology, physiological models, and positive psychology. Potential public health implications of this research are discussed, as well as directions for future studies. The article concludes, with some caveats, that a strong correlation exists between the well-being, happiness, health, and longevity of people who are emotionally and behaviorally compassionate, so long as they are not overwhelmed by helping tasks.
Relation to the Research Question: Evidence of familial tendencies toward altruism promotes a theory of genetic and environmental impact of an attitude toward giving to strangers. Families who demonstrate consistent charitable acts and encourage the behavior in children promote an innate sense of altruism rather than psychological egoism.
Abstract 2
The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation
James M. Hudson and Amy S. Bruckman
Abstract: A number of studies have shown that students are often more willing to participate in educational conversations online than in the classroom. However, other studies have shown that online environments have poor student participation Why is this the case? What causes participation to vary from one environment to another? To explore these phenomena, we borrow a concept from social psychology, the bystander effect, which explains why individuals are less likely to help in an emergency if others are present. Although the bystander effect specifically applies to helping behavior in emergency situations, we use this construct as a lens through which to view nonemergency situations such as educational environments. The bystander effect has 4 key components: self-awareness, social cues, blocking mechanisms, and diffuse responsibility. Focusing on these mechanisms can help us more fully characterize participation patterns observed in different educational environments and leverage this knowledge in the design of such systems. We present a case study of two students in both classroom and online French learning environments and show how the psychological mechanisms of the bystander effect help us understand observed behavioral changes. Any dialog—large or small, written or oral, scientific or casual—involves two well-defined roles: speaker and listener. In productive discourse, participants must play each of these roles at some point. For a speaker to speak, there must be an audience; for a discussion to continue, the audience must respond. Authors from many aspects of academia have attempted to define conversation and discussion in many ways, but these two features remain consistent.
Relation to the Research Question: The four components of the bystander effect help to explain why a stranger will help another person. While the abstract discusses more concerning conversation, it is applicable to the topic of this paper.
Abstract 3
Psychological Egoism Revisited
- Article author query
- brown nj [Google Scholar]
Norman J. Brown
Abstract: Psychological egoism is, I suppose, regarded by most philosophers as one of the more simple-minded fallacies in the history of philosophy, and dangerous and seductive too, contriving as it does to combine cynicism about human ideals and a vague sense of scientific method, both of which make the ordinary reader feel sophisticated, with conceptual confusion, which he cannot resist. For all of these reasons it springs eternal, in one form or another, in the breasts of first-year students, and offers excellent material for their philosophy instructors, who like nothing better than an edifice of sturdy appearance but with rotten foundations on which to display their skill as demolition experts.
Relation to the Research Question: The concept of psychological egoism enters into philosophy as a fatalist idea of cynicism. As individuals mature, morality enters into the discussion of selflessness. But the result of an altruistic act responds to the personal philosophy by giving a positive feedback which bolsters self-worth. The end result of a charitable act is for the benefit of the individual, intentional or not.
Abstract 4
The Argument from Psychological Egoism to Ethical Egoism
Terence McConnell
Abstract: Psychological egoism is the view that each person is so constituted that he always seeks his own advantage or best interest. This thesis makes the factual claim that human nature is such that no person can perform an act unless he believes that it is in his best interest. According to psychological egoism there are two sorts of acts that a person cannot perform: ones that he believes to be contrary to his best interests and ones about which he has no beliefs (with respect to how they relate to his interests). Ethical egoism is the view that a person's only obligation is to promote his own best interest.1 While psychological egoism purports to tell us how people do in fact behave, ethical egoism tells us how people ought to behave. It is sometimes claimed that psychological egoism, if true, lends support to ethical egoism. Specifically, it is supposed that the truth of ethical egoism follows from two premises: one asserting the truth of psychological egoism, and the other stating the principle that 'ought' implies 'can'. One can see that the argument has some intuitive appeal. The first premise says that it is impossible for a person to do anything but seek his own good. And the second premise says that we are never required to do the impossible. So it would seem that we can infer the truth of ethical egoism from these premises. The validity of this argument is rarely challenged. The usual criticism is that the argument is unsound because psychological egoism is false.2 So even if the conclusion follows from the premises, we need not be committed to ethical egoism. But even if this defeats the argument, it would still be interesting to know if the conclusion really does follow from the premises. If additional premises are required to make the argument valid, premises as dubious as psychological egoism itself, then the argument is even weaker than it is normally supposed to be.
Relation to the Research Question: The idea of psychological egoism disputes the idea that a perceived altruistic act does not benefit the person performing it. The premise is that a person will not do anything that does not in some way benefit him.
Abstract 5
Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One Into One Equals Oneness
Robert B.Cialdini, S.L. Brown, C. Luce, and S.L. Neuberg
Abstract: Important features of the self-concept can be located outside the individual and inside close or related others. The authors use this insight to reinterpret data previously said to support empathy-altruism method of helping, which asserts that empathetic concern for another results in selflessness and true altruism. They argue that the conditions that lead to empathetic concern also lead to a greater sense of self-concern overlap raising the possibility that helping under these conditions us not selfless but is also directed toward the self. Empathetic concerns increase only through their relation to perceived oneness. Empathetic concern affects helping primarily as an emotional signal of oneness.
Relation to the Research Question: Cialdini et al contend a person may appear to commit an act of selflessness when by definition they are creating a sense of oneness.
