Cross-Cultural Altruism

5 Key excerpts on "Cross-Cultural Altruism"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  Handbook of Basic Principles

  • Paul A. M. Van Lange, E. Tory Higgins, Arie W. Kruglanski(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • The Guilford Press

    (Publisher)

  PART II Principles in Context 499 A lthough humans are capable of extraor- dinary acts of altruism when faced with people in need, it is also the case that they often attempt to shirk that duty. Indeed, perhaps the most classic research investigating altruism in social psychology—Darley and Latane’s (1968) exploration of bystander intervention—focuses on how the presence of others leads to diffusion of responsibility, and, often, the failure of any- one offering to help. Even without others to take the blame, however, people are often skilled at avoiding altruism, both in actions and in ratio- nalizations. For example, Andreoni, Rao, and Trachtman (2017) placed Salvation Army bell ringers at either one or both entrances to a su- permarket, making it either easy or difficult to “avoid the ask.” While making avoidance diffi- cult did increase donations, it was also the case that many people chose to avoid the bell ringers altogether by entering through the unmanned door. Similarly, when faced with a decision ei- ther to split $10 with another participant, or sim- ply take $9 instead (and leave the other person with $0), fully one-third of participants took the $9—provided that the recipient would never know about that choice (Dana, Cain, & Dawes, 2006). People also go to great lengths to convince themselves that their selfish behavior is in fact fair and egalitarian (see Gino, Norton, & Weber, 2016). For instance, Batson, Kobrynowicz, Din- nerstein, Kampf, and Wilson (1997) asked par- ticipants in a laboratory experiment to distrib- ute two tasks between themselves and another participant: a positive task (earning tickets to a raffle) and a negative task (described as “dull and boring”).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Family Caregiving Across the Lifespan

  • Eva Kahana, David E. Biegel, May Wykle, Eva Kahana, David E. Biegel, May Wykle(Authors)
  • 1994(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Notwithstanding the paucity of systematic research, in this chapter the existing work is woven into a picture of the development of altruism through the life course and is discussed in the sections that follow. DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES To behave altruistically, one undoubtedly must possess certain com-petencies, both perceived and actual (Midlarsky, 1984). The competen-cies associated with mature caregiving—which include the ability to correctly perceive a need from the perspective of the other, to feel genuine concern, to develop an intention, and to act effectively—are products of normal socialization. Normal socialization, in turn, assumes that the helpless infant is nurtured and protected until adulthood, and that the caregiver attends to emotional as well as physical needs. In Freud's (1954) words, the original helplessness of human beings is the primal source of all moral motives (p. 379). Under conditions of normal caregiving, the individual's fundamental nature and experiences interact in a positive way with the stages of cognition and personality, as these last two evolve. A precondition for altruistic motivation is, first of all, the concern for others. A first question, then, is when does the concern for others emerge? The answer can be found, in point of fact, in human interac-tions all around us. It has long been obscured, though, by a Zeitgeist reflective of the convergence of several theoretical orientations. These have included classical psychoanalysis, Watsonian behaviorism, and certain interpretations of Darwin's theory. According to Freudian theory, the innate predisposition of human-kind—personified at birth by the id—is aggressive, hedonistic, irratio-nal, and utterly self-centered. Although altruism is necessary for the individual's survival within the community, at the core of all seemingly 74 P A R A D I G M S F O R C A R E G I V I N G altruistic acts is guilt (and self-interest) (Freud, 1954).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Jeffrey H Goldstein(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  Wispe (1972) has defined each of these concepts and several related ones. Altruism is concern for the well-being of others without • 224 ALTRUISM AND HELPING BEHAVIOR concern for one's self-interest. Of course, it can be argued that behavior never occurs unless it is in our interest to perform it. One person may risk her life to save another and thereby be seen as behaving altruistically. However, it is possible that she hoped to obtain a reward or publicity by her actions, and thus had her own interest at heart. While this has become a delicate topic of discussion among social psychologists, we can say that altruism involves con-siderably more self-sacrifice than apparent self-gain. Helping is giving aid or assistance to another with a definite goal in mind. It involves giving time and effort, but probably does not entail danger to the helper. Donating refers to the act of making a gift or contribution, usually to a charity. Bystander intervention is a direct, personal effort on behalf of another person, often involving an element of personal danger, to protect the interests of or to prevent harm from coming to another. Prosocial behavior, which will be used here as a broad term that encompasses all the others, is any act that is designed to benefit another person or group of persons whether or not the act involves possible benefits to the actor. The act may be direct or indirect, and may involve time, effort, or money. SOME DEFINITIONS 225 • When you cant turn the handle by yourself, it's nice to have a big sister who will take the time to help you. THE KITTY GENOVESE CASE At 3:00 A.M . on a March night in 1964, no less than 38 neighbors in the Kew Gardens Apartments in New York City watched an assault on a young woman, Catherine Kitty Genovese. Her assailant, Winston Moseley, spent over thirty minutes murdering his victim. Oh my God! He stabbed me. Please help me! she screamed. But no one did. No one even lifted the phone to call the police.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook

  • Stephen F. Davis, William Buskist, Stephen F. Davis, William F. Buskist(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Triandis and Brislin (1984) were right in asserting that if we understand psychology as the scientific study of behavior, such study must encompass behavior in the entire world—not simply behavior found in industrialized countries. DEFINING THE FIELD Cross-Cultural Psychology: What Is It? Numerous writers have defined cross-cultural psy-chology in various ways. Shiraev and Levy (2007), for example, called it the “critical and comparative study of cultural effects on human psychology” (p. 3). Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike (1973) defined cross-cultural psy-chology as “the empirical study of members of various culture groups who have had different experiences that lead to predictable and significant differences in behavior” (p. 5), and Malpass (1977) described it as “a means of dis-covering the degree to which knowledge of behavior and basic processes obtained in one culture is representative of humanity in general” (p. 1069). A good, comprehensive definition is the one proposed by Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (2002): Cross-cultural psychology is the study: of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in vari-ous cultural and ethnocultural groups; of the relationships between psychological variables and socio-cultural, ecologi-cal and biological variables; and of ongoing changes in these variables. (p. 3) 484 • HUMAN DIVERSITY Today, key elements of an understanding of useful defi-nitions of cross-cultural psychology include recognition of the importance of mainstream psychological science; acknowledgment of the influence of cultural forces on psychological functioning of individuals; and realization that people across cultures share many similarities, as well as differences. Taken together, these elements allow for a legitimate science of cross-cultural psychology. Foundations of Cross-Cultural Psychology Several foundational principles underlie contemporary research in cross-cultural psychology.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Embracing the Other

  Philosophical, Psychological, and Historical Perspectives on Altruism

  • Pearl Oliner, Samuel P. Oliner, Lawrence Baron, Lawrence Blum, Pearl Oliner, Samuel P. Oliner, Lawrence Baron, Lawrence Blum(Authors)
  • 1992(Publication Date)
  • NYU Press

    (Publisher)

  Social scientists from several theoretical orientations have adduced evidence that some individuals possess an “altruistic personality”—a pervasive disposition to help others (“alters”), more or less as an end in itself. We will open this chapter with a critique of these approaches, then outline a model we feel counteracts their limitations. We will propose that individuals normally acquire the capacity to perform increasingly adequate types of altruism as they develop, and that individual differences in altruism stem from the interaction between the stage structures individuals have acquired and the opportunities and demands of the social contexts they create and encounter. In contrast to approaches that assume that the amount of altruism in an individual is a function of the frequency of helping behaviors he or she displays, we will argue that there are different types of altruistic personality. Everybody possesses the capacity to engage in some forms of altruism, but individuals who have acquired the competencies intrinsic to advanced stages of development possess the potential to perform a broader array of more altruistic acts than individuals who have not acquired these competencies.

  THE BEHAVIORAL CONSISTENCY APPROACH

  The most prevalent psychological approach to altruistic personality is based on the assumption that individuals who consistently display a relatively high incidence of prosocial behavior across different situations possess an internal personality trait of altruism. A major proponent of this approach, Rushton (1982), argues that because many studies have found significant positive correlations between two or more “behavioral indicies of altruism,” such as donating to charity and picking up “accidentally” spilled index cards, we should conclude that “some people are more consistently altruistic than others” (432), and therefore that they possess an “altruistic personality.”

  As pointed out by Krebs (1982) and Krebs and Miller (1985), however, evidence of cross-situational consistency in prosocial behavior does not constitute sufficient evidence of altruism. There are four basic problems with the behavioral consistency approach, two conceptual and two methodological. The conceptual problems stem from the tendency of behaviorally oriented researchers to define altruism phenotypically, in terms of its external form or consequences (benefit to another), rather than in terms of its underlying motives, goals, and purposes. The assumption that behaviors that have the consequence of helping others stem from altruistic motives is gratuitous. Even if, with behaviorally oriented theorists, one is willing to assume that a behavior may be characterized as altruistic by its consequences, surely the only basis on which to characterize a person

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book