Altruism and Volunteerism

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39:3 0021-8308
Altruism and Volunteerism: The perceptions of altruism in four disciplines and their impact on the study of volunteerism
DEBBIE HASKI-LEVENTHAL
jtsb_405 271..299
INTRODUCTION
One of the important aspects of human altruism is long-term and organized activity for the benet of others, that is, formal volunteering. Not every act of volunteering is altruistic and not every altruistic act is volunteering, but the connection between the two concepts is so strong that one cannot speak of the one without the other. In 1957, Sills was the rst to write a book on organized volunteering, and the study of volunteerism has since developed greatly. Scholars have studied different aspects of volunteering such as motivation to volunteer, related cost and benets, socio-demographic characteristics and turnover. Although there are some reviews on altruism (see Piliavin & Charng, 1990), and some on volunteerism (see Wilson, 2000), surprisingly there is no review which binds the two. Therefore, the current article will examine the different philosophies that led social disciplinarians to study altruism and the ways the basic perceptions of human behavior led to designing research of altruism and, later, the research questions regarding volunteerism. We will show that psychology, sociology, economy and socio-biology based their study of altruism on the perception of rational and economical man, which led to research on volunteerism which followed such perceptions. However, we do not intend to widely discuss each discipline but rather the approaches of the mainstream in each to altruism. Altruism and Volunteerism Dened Altruism, from the Latin, means for the other, caring for the alter. Different denitions of altruism have emphasized the orientation toward the other, whether exclusively or not. In his book The Altruism Question, Batson (1991: 6) dened altruism as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfare. For a goal to be ultimate it must be an end in itself and not a means to
2009 The Author Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
272
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
another goal. Hoffman (1979) dened altruism as behavior such as helping or sharing that promotes the welfare of others without conscious regard for ones own self interest (p. 2). David Horton Smith (2000), on the other hand, saw helping others as a means to increase the helpers satisfaction. Smith dened altruism as an inner tendency of a group or an individual, focused on giving meaningful service(s) to other person/s, neither toward oneself nor ones family (and by that excluded parental sacrice for a child or self-help groups). Indeed, Smith claimed, and not for the rst time (see D.H. Smith, 1981), that pure altruism does not exist and that every altruistic act is basically egoistic. Whether an altruistic act has to include some self-sacrice is debatable. Some (for example, Sigmund & Hauert, 2002) claimed that any act for another will be considered altruistic if it benets the recipient and harms the helper. If both gain from the interaction, then it is cooperationnot altruism. Monroe (1996: 6) also dened altruism as behavior intended to benet another, even when this risks possible sacrice to the welfare of the actor. However, Batson (1991) argued that altruistic motivation does not necessarily involve self-sacrice, although it may. In his opinion, including self-sacrice in the denition of altruism shifts attention from motivations to consequences, while ignoring the possibility that self-benet may be greater, as the costs to the helper increase. Denitions of volunteerism also focused on aspects of helping another without material rewards, but emphasized the helpers free will. Volunteering is based on the Latin voluns (choose) or velle (want): the choice and the (free) will to help are essential to determine volunteerism. Van Til (1988: 6) emphasized the lack of coerciveness in volunteering, which he identied as a helping action of an individual that is valued by him or her, and yet is not aimed directly at material gain or mandated or coerced by others. Ellis and Noyes (1990: 4) pointed to the importance of free will and saw it as a positive social action, performing an act without coercion and going beyond ones basic obligations. However, Smith (D.H. Smith, 1981: 223) showed his disbelief in pure altruism by dening volunteering as a behavior that is essentially motivated by the expectation of psychic benets of some kind as a result of activities that have a market value greater than any remuneration received for such activities. Cnaan, Handy and Wadsworth (1996) showed that most denitions of volunteerism have four main components: free will behavior, with no monetary reward, aimed to help strangers/beneciaries, on a long-term basis or in a formal setting. A narrow denition will include only an activity that is done completely of ones free will, with no material rewards whatsoever, to complete strangers, and within an organization or as long-term behavior. Unsurprisingly, there are similarities between denitions of altruism and those of volunteerism. They are so similar that it is hard to understand why so little has been written about the two concepts together. However, the free will concept is found in most volunteering denitions, but not in those on altruism. One explanation (for example, by Monroe, 1996) is that altruistic behavior is often
2009 The Author Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
Altruism and Volunteerism
273
perceived by the helpers as a reex, a sense of duty, whether as an inner voice (conscience) or perceived social norms and duty. Furthermore, the social-biological approach sees altruism as an instinct to preserve the genes and as a reex.
THE EGOCENTRIC APPROACH TO ALTRUISM
In Organizational Psychology, Schein (1980) argued that in every motivational theory (especially in the motivation to work) there are different perceptions of human nature that guide the theory and the managerial strategy that derives from it. Schein described four such perceptions: economical-rational man; social man; self actualizing man and the complex man. In this article we aim to show that the perception of human beings as rational and economical underlies most theories and studies of altruism and volunteerism in social sciences. According to Schein (1980), the perception of economical man means that people are motivated mainly by economical incentives for their own needs, desires, satisfaction and survival. Thus, scholars in philosophy, psychology, sociology, socio-biology and economics strive to explain the self benets underlying altruism. In fact, the egocentric approach is so rooted in these disciplines, it has become white noise that no-one seems to hear and ask about any longer. According to the egocentric approach, every altruistic act is done for future benet/s or cooperation, and what motivates a person to help another are the tangible and perceived benets she or he may gain, directly or indirectly. This approach actually rejects the idea of altruistic motivation to volunteer or to help, and only perceives satisfaction and benets to the self as the true motives (Clohesy, 2000; Khalil, 2004). Such an approach ignores the emotional process of the helper, including feelings of empathy and sympathy. Compassion, desire to benet others and sacrice, are considered as means to improve self-image and social appreciation. However, this approach does not explain why the helper must act and not rely on others to help. Further, if self satisfaction is all there is to altruism, then why do people endanger their own lives to rescue others?
The Utilitarian Approach to Morality Particularly since Plato and Aristotle, Western philosophers have dealt with questions of morality. But while ancient Greek philosophy dealt with the question of who is a moral man, modern philosophy focuses on what is moral behavior. The two main approaches in moral philosophy are the Deontological Moral of Kant (17241804) versus the Utilitarian approach of Bentham (17481832) and John Stuart Mill (18061873). It was the latter approach that generated the egocentric perceptions of altruism.
274
In the basis of the Utilitarian philosophy is the Hobbesian approach to human nature of homo homini lupus (a man to a man is a wolf) where humans were perceived as calculators of self-interests, driven by pleasure and suffering (Batson, 1991). Utilitarian philosophers dened what is good as what achieves the greatest benets, and maintained that benets can be pleasures, preferences and satisfaction. Utilitarianism is consequentialist, since its main argument is that the right thing to do is the one that leads to the best results in terms of welfare and pleasure. As for altruism, Mill (1861) argued that the Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of scarifying their own greatest good for the good of others; it only refuses to admit that the sacrice is itself good (Chapter 2, paragraph 17). According to Mill, altruism is a result of socialization and people may allegedly be altruistic, if they be brought up to believe that altruism could benet them (socially, personally or by God) or, alternatively, that not acting altruistically may lead to punishment. Thus the motive to help others is basically egoistic. Adam Smith (17231790) further asserted that altruism occurs when one feels distress facing anothers suffering. According to Smith, the power that underlies altruistic behavior is the desire to reduce this distress, as well as the desire to improve our social image and to avoid social and self-censure. Therefore, altruistic persons do not help in order to benet others, but rather out of a desire to receive benets, avoid distress and discomfort, and relieve their sense of obligation (Batson, 1991).
THE EGOCENTRIC APPROACH IN EARLY PSYCHOLOGY
Freud (18561939) perceived altruism as acting for ones own well-being. Even if altruistic motivation could develop, it is only a strategic expression of a more fundamental and egoistic one (Batson, 1991). In his General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Freud (1920) explained that children love themselves, and only through a socialization process do they learn to love others. Children even love their parents simply because they need them, out of egoistic motives. Only later in life do love and egoism separate. Freud described the importance of aggression in peoples lives, and the ever-lasting struggle between the creative love force, eros, and the destructive death force, thanatos. A moral power to balance the two is required: the super-ego. Thus, when people realize that the ego cannot be fully satised and that aggression toward others is undesirable, they turn their aggression toward themselves and produce guilt. As for altruism, Freud explained in Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), that the individual development is a product of the interplay between the struggle for happiness (egoism) and the impulse toward merging with others in the community (altruism). The super-ego, through an instituting restriction, represses the selsh needs, and altruism
275
develops, either as a result of guilt or as the product of values and social standards learned in childhood. Although, since Freud, perceptions of man, needs and impulses have altered, psychological egoism was still inuential in the 1970s and 1980s on sub-disciplines in psychology, such as social psychology and developmental psychology (Batson, 1991; Monroe, 1996, 2001). The theory of Ultimate Psychological Hedonism (UPH), as one example, is a widespread motivation theory which assumes that actions are ultimately carried out to maximize the level of ones own pleasure and to minimize ones own pain (Mees & Schmitt, 2008).
Developmental Psychology Developmental psychology was inuenced by the notion that egoism and aggression mellow as a child grows older, and also by the concept that altruism is actually a product of socialization. That is, a child is naturally egoistic. As such, the focus was on the inuence of learning and growing on the development of altruism, and the manners in which aging reduces egocentric impulse. Developmentalists have examined the manner in which children come to feel moral emotions such as guilt and empathy; and how they become capable and willing to behave accordingly to rules and values without a need for external control (Kochanska & Aksan, 2004). However, some scholars in this discipline did argue that children can be empathic and altruistic. Hoffman (1978) argued that humans are programmed not only to be egoistic, but also, under certain conditions, to help other human beings, even at cost to themselves. In his theory on the development of altruistic motivation (1975), Hoffman suggested that an altruistic motivation is developed in infants in several stages: from empathic distress (the involuntary experiencing of another persons painful emotional distress) to sympathic distress, which is divided into three levels. At the rst level, child knows that others are separate physical entities but does not realize that they have thoughts and feelings different from his own, thus, the child can sense the distress of others, and tries to comfort them in the same way he or she likes to be comforted. At the second level, the child becomes aware of others as sources of thoughts and feelings and tries comforting them in means that are suited to their individual situations. The nal level occurs when the child can be sympathetic to the overall life situation others. In 1979, Hoffman argued that empathic affect arousal is involuntary and occurs in infants, even a few days old, but that only with time, a child learns what the other is, and how to comfort another in a helpful manner (see more about empathy and altruism in different stages of childhood, Hoffman 1975, 1979). Piliavin and Charng (1990) explained that the ability to help others increases over a life-time: as children grow older they develop empathy and social responsibility. Based on Banduras theory of social learning (1963, 1977), Piliavin (2000)
276
asserted that altruism develops through learning and parental modeling. Thus, children that were exposed to altruistic behavior tended to demonstrate such behavior themselves. Furthermore, the most effective learning of altruism by children is by practice, and therefore childrens participation in the altruistic and voluntary activity of their parents, as well as volunteering in school, may lead to an earlier development of an altruistic self. Krebs (1982; Krebs & Van-Hesteren, 1994) captured altruism as a continuum ranging from completely self-centered behaviors on the one hand, and completely alter-centered behaviors on the other. Based on scholars who dealt with human development (such as Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, and Kegan), Krebs explained that peoples ability to understand others changes over time, and thus, in different stages of life, people differ in their social abilities (even if they do not always behave accordingly). Krebs suggested a model of seven stages or levels of altruism, and in each stage a person gets closer to the altruistic end of the continuum. The stages move from egocentric accommodation (mainly to relieve distress and fulll safety needs) and instrumental cooperation, to mutual altruism (sensitivity to others in general, fullling role obligations) and conscientious altruism (pro-social behavior guided by an internal sense of social responsibility); until one reaches autonomous altruism (based on internal high values) and integrated altruism (full identication with humanity). Very few reach the last stage: universal self-sacricial love. Zahn-Waxler (Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990; Zahn-Waxler, 1991; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992) argued that the old conceptions of children as egoistic are not necessarily true, and that pro-social behaviors and attitudes can develop in early childhood, due to environment (socialization or parental emotional state) or temperament (character or personality). As early as two years of age, children can show (a) the cognitive capacity to interpret physical and psychological states of others, (b) the emotional capacity to experience, affectively, the state of others, and (c) the behavioral repertoire that may help them to alleviate discomfort in others.
Impact of Developmental Psychology on the Study of Volunteerism The approach of developmental psychology to altruism inuenced research on age and volunteering behavior (see Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000). Some scholars argued that the tendency to volunteer increases with age, and therefore people volunteer more as they retire. In addition to the leisure time, which increases in old age, altruism is stronger then, and that is why older people volunteer more (Putnam, 2000). This is mainly based on the perception that people are born egoistic and change through socialization and up-brining. Patterns of volunteering through the life cycle were also studied. Atchley (1971, 1989) developed the continuity theory of aging and argued that people of
277
older age tend to make decisions and behave according to patterns formed from a younger age. Indeed, studies show that people who volunteered when they were younger, tend to so as they age. An Independent Sector (2001) survey found that 44 percent of adult volunteers began to do so in adolescence, and that people who volunteered as adolescents have twice the chance to volunteer as adults. Therefore, much research was done on volunteering in adolescence. Factors that may lead adolescents to volunteer were studied, and socialization to volunteering through parents, school and church was found to be very important (Janoski & Wilson, 1995; Jones, 2000; Raskoff & Sundeen, 1994, 1998; Sundeen & Raskoff, 2000). A few studies have tried to understand personal motivations of youth to volunteer. Schondel and Boehm (2000) found that, in general, youth motivation to volunteer was similar to that of older volunteers while HaskiLeventhal, Ronnel, York and Ben-David (2008) found that adolescents had different motivations and that social motives were uniquely strong (also see: Jones, 2000; Omoto et al., 2000). Volunteering was found to have a positive impact on adolescents success in school, and it helped reduce several behavioral problems, such as substance abuse, violence and early pregnancy (Schondel et al., 1995; Uggen & Janikula, 1999).
Social Psychology Studies on altruism in social psychology are based on the notion that prosocial behavior, as any behavior, is a result of the interaction between a person and his or her environment (for example, Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004). Such studies emphasized social norms and values, emotional reactions, situational factors and social relations between helpers and receivers (Batson, 1991; Monroe, 1996). Monroe (1996) explained that altruism is a result of an interactive decisionmaking process in which the characteristics of the helper connect with those of the environment, and the parties inuence is mutual. The symbolic interaction theory was often used to explain altruistic behavior (Mead, 1934, 1970). The idea is that people attach symbolic meaning to objects and behaviors, to themselves and others, and develop and pass on these meanings by interaction and communication. Furthermore, people strive to know others interpretations of their own behavior. Mead explained that moral behavior is a result of peoples capability to see themselves from the others points of view, and of their desire for reassurance. However, according to Khalil (2004), writers who used the symbolic interaction theory failed to explain why different people react to the same situation differently. Why do some people act according to social expectations and some not? Why do only certain people appreciate altruistic behavior? By using the theory, too much emphasis was given to the situational factors over the personality aspects.
278
What Makes an Altruist: Altruism and Personality Issues A small number of writers assumed that there is an altruistic or prosocial personality (Allen & Rushton, 1983; Oliner & Oliner, 1988). By studying personality traits, such as the Big Five (or the ve factors model, see: Digman, 1990; John, 1990), scholars concluded that some factors are indeed related to altruism, including extraversion and emotional stability (Batson, 1991; Bekkers, 2004). Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed over 400 people who helped Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II, and came to the conclusion that there is an altruistic personality, which includes several characteristics, such as being empathetic and generous. Other studies pointed to a strong self image, self efcacy, inner locus control, and a low need of appraisal. Moral norms and commitment to such norms, a sense of responsibility and a low desire for free riding were also correlated to altruism (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Empathy is related to prosocial and altruistic behavior in two possible manners. First, by identifying with the other, one may feel secondary distress, and thus the desire to help is aimed to reduce ones own distress. Alternatively, empathy can create a sincere desire to help. If the aim is to reduce ones own distress, then the given help may be done by others or be ineffective. An interesting explanation to empathic behavior and altruism is based on the Attachment Theory of Bowlby (1969), according to which human beings are born with attachment behavioral system that motivates them to seek proximity to people who will protect them (attachment gures). Theoretically, people who have the benets of secure social attachment (based on good care-giving system in early childhood), nd it easier to perceive and respond to other peoples suffering (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Several studies demonstrated that compassionate feeling and values, as well as altruistic behavior, are promoted by attachment security (Mikulincer et al., 2005; Gillath et al., 2005). An additional personal perception that may inuence altruism is the psychological sense of community, which was dened by Sarason (1974: 1) as a sense that one belongs in, and is meaningfully a part of a larger collectivity. McMillan (1996: 315) later dened it as the spirit of belonging together, a feeling there is an authority that can be trusted, an awareness that trade and mutual benet come from being together. An enhanced sense of community benets the community, encourages trust and generates a feeling of belonging among its members (Omoto & Snyder, 2002).
Altruism and Situational Factors Research shows that certain situations (and their interpretations) are related to peoples readiness to help. For example, people will be more willing to help after a disaster rather than in day-to-day situations (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Another
279
important situational factor is the number of other people who are present and could give help. Darley and Latane (1968) presented the bystander effect: a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone. Additional situational factors may impact the decision to help, such as the characteristics and state of the needy: women tend to receive more help than men, and the more that the victim is perceived as helpless, the more chances actual help will arrive (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Relationships between helpers and beneciary and the existence of former acquaintances can also lead people to help (Oliner & Oliner, 1988).
Impact of Social Psychology on the Study of Volunteerism Several studies examined personality traits and their impact on volunteering (see Penner, 2004), and found that empathic ability, self-efcacy, inner locus control, strong morality and self image inuence the tendency to volunteer (Bekkers, 2004; Piliavin & Charng, 1990; Smith, 1994). Penner (Penner & Finkelstein, 1998; Penner, 2002) found that two factors were related to volunteering: a sense of helpfulness and other-oriented empathy (feeling responsible for the welfare of others). People with prosocial personalities tend to volunteer twice as much when volunteering requires overcoming difculties and obstacles (Herman & Usita, 1994; Lau et al., 2004; Spitz & McKinnon, 1993). Regarding attachment style and volunteering, some studies show that avoidant attachment is related to less volunteering and to self-enhancing motives for volunteering (Gillath et al., 2005). Volunteering is related to a psychological sense of community in two ways: volunteering enhances the sense of community, and a strong sense of community is also an indicator of further volunteering (Okum & Michel, 2006). It is cultural capital, which along with human capital (e.g. education and income) and social capital (networks), predicts volunteering (Wilson & Musick, 1998). Haski-Leventhal, Ben-Arieh, and Melton (2008) found that neighborly volunteering in American rural areas was enhanced by participants strong sense of community. It is interesting to note that similar personality traits impact both altruism and volunteerism, and therefore we may conclude that people with a prosocial personality would tend to help, whether through spontaneous altruistic behavior or through organized voluntary action. The concept of behavior as a result of the person-environment interaction entered the study of volunteerism only recently. Penner (2002) suggested a theoretical model which combines personal factors (such as socio-demography, values, attitudes, prosocial personality and motivations) and situational, organizational and social factors to explain volunteering, the decision to volunteer and different stages in volunteering.
280
Social psychology also inuenced the study on motivations to volunteer, which has been dened as internal, psychological forces that move people to overcome obstacles and become involved in volunteer activity (Clary et al., 1996: 486). Motivation to volunteer is the most studied aspect of volunteering, as so many scholars strived to explain the gap between the egocentric approach and volunteering (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Fitch, 1987; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998; Pearce, 1993; Qureshi et al., 1983; Yeung, 2004; Zakour, 1994). Motivation to volunteer is usually perceived as a combination of several motives, altruistic and egoistic alike (see Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991), which may imply that pure altruism is impossible or unlikely. Different writers have offered different categories to these motivations: Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) presented the three dimensional model, consisting of altruism, egoism and social motivation. Yeung (2004) suggested the octagonal model, which describes four motivational dimensions: getting-giving; action-thought; newness-continuity; and proximity-distance. Another important contribution of social psychology to the study of volunteerism is the functional approach (Katz, 1960), according to which we adapt and alter our attitudes during our life to fulll different psychological functions. Clary, Snyder and colleagues (Clary et al., 1996; Omoto & Snyder, 1993) have proposed the functional approach and employed it in the study of volunteerism. It emphasizes the diversity of motives that underlie volunteer behavior and shows that the same volunteer behavior can serve different functions for different individuals. Clary and others (1996) have identied six major motives for volunteer service: Expression of Values (acting on the belief of the importance of helping others); Understanding (to understand others or oneself); Career (enhancing career opportunities or skills); Social (to meet the normative expectations of others); Self-Esteem (to feel good about oneself); and Protective motive (to relieve or escape negative or aversive feelings). Studies have suggested that matching motives to volunteer activities results in higher performance ratings and greater satisfaction with service and that some motives are better predictors of continued service than others (Clary & Snyder, 1991).
SOCIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS OF ALTRUISM
In the 19th century, as sociology began to develop as an academic discipline, theories on altruism emerged. Sorokin (18891968) was a Russian-American sociologist, who established the research center on volunteerism, linked altruism and love, and described the different aspects of both: ethical, religious, biological, psychological and social. Sorokin (1965) perceived helping and giving in a community as love. Kropotkin (18421921), also born in Russia, attributed the central role in human moral development to altruism. Kropotkin established the social theory, which conceives mutual help to be a basic trait of all living beings (including
281
animal herds) and not as a result of culture or civilization. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evaluation, Kropotkin (1902) explained that altruism has a major role in our moral development. He disagreed with Darwin, who said that nature is all about a struggle for existence, in which only the ttest survive. In Kropotkins vision such a struggle was only one aspect of nature which was balanced by an opposite onespontaneous solidarity. Kropotkin believed that mutual help is a strong and natural human trait, stronger than egoism or the search for power. According to Shalev (2003), later in the 20th century sociologists generally found little interest in studying altruism, and only in the 1970s did such interest reemerge. The alter-centric approaches of Sorokin and Kropotkin disappeared, and the focus shifted to personal factors that may lead to altruistic behavior. If social psychologists looked at personality traits, sociologists studied aspects of group, community, religion and socio-demographic features.
Collective Norms and Group Inuence People are social entities whose interactions with their social surroundings (from early childhood to adult life) shape their behavior, beliefs, values, and world perspectives. The self evolves not as a distinct physiological or psychological entity, but as a social construct (Mead, 1934). Peoples afliation group (be it family, community, or a congregation) play an important role in developing the norms and values of both the group and the individual. Group membership inuences behavior through the mediating role of group norms. People will be more likely to engage in a particular behavior if it is in accord with the norms of the group (Terry & Hogg, 1996; White et al., 1994). Durkheim (1897/1997; 1912/1995) presented the idea of norms and norm conformity. In traditional mechanistic societies, argued Durkheim, the collective consciousness entirely subsumes individual consciousness. Social norms are strong and social behavior is well-regulated. However, in modern organic societies, individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness, often nding itself in conict with the collective consciousness. Durkheim demonstrated that, in more cohesive groups and communities, people better comply with the norms of the group. Participation in collectivities is not only the result of group cohesion, but also strengthens the sense of belonging to the group. Durkheims theory of social norms can be interpreted in two ways. In the rst interpretation, sometimes labeled as structural, social norms reside outside the individual, and become visible through the actions of other members of ones community or group and therefore cohesion and group structure are most important. In the second interpretation, social norms reside within the individual, in his or her beliefs and internalized value system. According to the second cultural interpretation, individuals are more likely to obey social norms when they have internalized these norms through socialization (Bekkers, 2004).
282
Studies on the percentage of population involved in volunteer work show stable trends in different countries (Hodgkinson, 2003; ONeil, 2001; Pearce, 1993; Penner, 2004; Wilson, 2000). For example, annually about a half of adult Americans volunteer while only one-third of adult Europeans do so, and only 15 percent volunteer in post-communist countries (Anheier & Salamon, 1999). As such, it is possible that social norms and other characteristics of the society and community in which one lives have an affect on both the altruistic tendency and volunteering habits. In previous studies of altruism and volunteering in different societies, both the structural and cultural perspectives were taken into account: some have studied structural features such as community size and networking (Monroe, 1996; Pearce, 1993; Penner, 2004; Smith, 1994; Wilson, 2000) while others studied cultural aspects, such as religion, social values, social pressure and reciprocity (Bekkers, 2004; Monroe, 1996; Oliner & Oliner, 1988).
The Importance of Values in Enhancing Altruism Social values can also explain altruism and volunteering (Bekkers, 2004). Rokeach (1969: 160) dened values as belief that a specic mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conduct or end-states of existence. Schwartz (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000) described ten personal values which impact our attitudes and behavior, among them the value of benevolence: concern for others welfare, aspiration for responsibility and loyalty, honest relationships with others and lending a hand in a time of distress. We may assume that people with strong values of benevolence will demonstrate strong altruism and voluntary action.
Human and Social Resources Alongside collective afliation and norms, sociologists studied socio-demographic factors and their impact on altruism and volunteerism such as: income, education, gender and age. Two theories on the relation of such factors to voluntary action emerged: the dominant status approach and the social resources theory. According to David Horton Smith (1994), the dominant status is dened by components which are perceived as prestigious. Thus higher status in the Western World is dominated by white men, with higher income and education, middle aged, who are active in church and in sports. Smith showed that the features of the dominant status are also related to volunteering. Wilson and Musick (1998) wrote about the contribution of social resources to volunteering, and explained that high social involvement depends on social capital (social networks, social contacts, and afliation to church and other organizations) and human capital (education and income).

IMPACT OF SOCIOLOGY ON THE STUDY OF VOLUNTEERISM
283
The impact of sociology on the study of volunteerism can be seen by the vast body of research on the way in which socio-demographic factors, social capital, and cultural norms and values are related to volunteering. Pearce (1993) explained that there is a large body of data and knowledge on the socio-demographic factors of volunteers, and that, in general, people with higher income, higher education, jobs and family tend to volunteer more, to volunteer in several organizations, to undertake leadership roles and to be more committed to their volunteer work. However, the literature review shows that the ndings are not denitive. Except for education, which was consistently found to be related to volunteering (Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000), other socio-demographic factors (such as income, age, gender and being employed) led to mixed results (Mostyn, 1983; Wilson, 2000). Research shows that religious afliation is also related to volunteering (Independent Sector, 2001; Toppe & Kirsch, 2003) and its inuence can be explained according to the structural and cultural interpretations of Durkheims theory. First, religious afliation increases a feeling of belonging, a psychological sense of community, social networking and the visibility of the voluntary acts of other members. In addition most religions promote the principles of helping others and love thy neighbor, and teach people values such as altruism and giving. As such, in a congregational setting one is introduced to the religious teaching and values of helping the needy and is surrounded by other members who are active in helping the needy (Cnaan, 2002). Findings consistently show strong correlations between peoples social capital and tendency to volunteer (Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000). Social contacts usually encourage volunteerism, either by direct request or by setting an example. People are more likely to volunteer in response to a personal appeal, particularly from a current volunteer. It was found that people who are asked to volunteer are four times more likely to do so than others (Penner, 2004). In fact, social capital can also explain the impact of human capital (income and education) on volunteering, given that individuals with higher positions at work and those who attended college have more social contacts. Furthermore, social networks provide rewards for helping behaviors, in the form of increasing positive attitudes from signicant others and increased prestige (warm-glow: Andreoni, 1995). Simon, Strumer, and Steffens (2000) showed that the more that a person has a collective identication with others, the more she or he will work and volunteer for the members of the in-group and be committed to it. Additionally, the volunteer group is important for maintaining volunteers and enhancing their satisfaction and commitment (Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009). Cross-cultural studies have showed that people in different countries have different perceptions of volunteering and who is a volunteer (Handy et al., 2000; Meijs et al., 2003). Local cultures, political climate, government policy, history
284
and norms can all impact the trends of volunteering in a given country. As Anheier and Salamon (1999) explained, volunteering is a cultural and economic phenomenon, and it is part of the way societies are organized and allocate social responsibilities, and how much participation they expect from citizens. The authors showed that in different countries and different political regimes people volunteer at different rates and for different causes. Haski-Leventhal, Cnaan, Handy et al. (2008) showed that students vocational choice impacted their tendency to volunteer, more than other background factors, but that the way vocational choice impacted the tendency to volunteer varied in different countries and cultures. Sociologists also studied the personal values that lead to volunteering. Shure (1991) described three catalysts that enhance volunteering: individual and group norms; sense of empathy; and guiding universal principles. Dekker and Helman (2003) wrote that among the values that lead to volunteering are altruism, solidarity, a desire to do good, a sense of justice and equality, and religious values. Reed and Selbee (2003) showed that volunteers have a distinctive ethos, manifested in the importance placed on civic and community action; in a belief that people ought to give and help; and in a feeling of universality. Smith (1994) found that volunteering was related to values of integrity, patriotism, democracy, political involvement, and willingness to help others.
IS ALTRUISM ECONOMICAL? ECONOMICS, ALTRUISM AND THE HOMO ECONOMICUS
The fact that many persons give time and money for the public good instead of relying on others to provide is an enigma to many economists (Andreoni, 1995). In his book, The Logic of Collective Action, Olson (1965) offered the idea of free-riding, and showed that any group can be affected by people who only ask for the collective good, but do not share the duty of the collective effort. The perceptions of people as economical and rational beings (homo economicus), acting by cost-benet calculus in order to maximize their own good, also affected the study of altruism. Not only does the mainstream in economics see people as egocentric creatures, but also as those who have enough information and ability to make calculated decisions. Altruism becomes a product with a price tag, as well as with a potential prot. Knox (1999) explained that, according to this approach, only a person who helps others out of egoistic motives, for his or her own good, is rational and truthful. As such, it is irrational and senseless for a lawyer who earns $250 per hour to volunteer in an activity that is worth one tenth of that amount: it would be more sensible to work for another hour and donate the money. Monroe (1996) asserted that, according to economists, altruism becomes a short term strategy, which aims to gain some good for the altruist, be it different benets or avoiding guilt.
285
The main impact of economics on the study of altruism and volunteerism has been the adoption of Blaus theory of social exchange (1967). Blau was a social psychologist, but the theorys foundations are the homo economicus perceptions. The basic concept in the social exchange theory is that people who give and help others expect something in return. An individual who helps another creates a feeling of obligation. In order to relieve him/herself from this obligation, the beneciary will try to reward his or her helper. If each of them perceives the received benets as valuable, this cycle will be maintained. Blau claimed that people are eager to receive social approval for their decisions, actions and opinions. People often change their attitudes, improve their decisions and act for the benet of others, just to receive social approval. Therefore, according to Blau, an egoistic motive underlies any altruistic act:
An apparent altruism pervades social life; people are anxious to benet one another and to reciprocate for the benets they receive. But beneath this seeming selessness an underlying egoism can be discovered; the tendency to help others is frequently motivated by the expectation that doing so will bring social rewards (p. 17).
However, economists also understand that altruism has unique components that are missing from economic exchange relationships. Even according to the social exchange theory, people act for some future obscure benet, but, since they cannot assure such a benet, social exchange requires trust. Thus, social exchange, although it may be derived from purely egoist motives, creates trust in social systems. Collard (1978, 1983) called for moral economical behavior, and argued that altruism is a necessary condition for such morality. According to Collard, mutual trust is a necessary but not sufcient condition for moral behavior in economical life. However, it should be noted that what Collard referred to as altruism also included paying progressive tax, which does not completely fall into the above denitions of altruism.
The Impact of Economics on the Study of Volunteerism Many writers on volunteerism have based their explanations of volunteering on the social exchange theory (Black & DiNitto, 1994; Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Qureshi et al., 1983; Wilson & Musick, 1999; Wilson, 2000). Thus, volunteers are perceived as people who give their time to help others in order to receive something in return: satisfaction, prestige, appraisal or social approval. Such benets can be intrinsic or extrinsic (e.g. symbols of appraisal, material rewards or training; see Cnaan and Amrofel, 1994; Gidron, 1978). Wilson (2000) explained that social exchange underlies volunteering on two levels: on the rst level, a person receives help (for themselves or their close ones) from society when it was needed and feels obligated. Volunteering is a way to relieve such obligation. On the second level, people volunteer since they fear one day they will be in need
286
and, by volunteering today, they create credit to rightfully ask for societys help in the future. Relying on exchange theories to explain volunteerism led to a vast number of studies on the benets and rewards related to volunteering, showing that volunteers reported different actual and expected intrinsic and extrinsic benets from volunteering (Cnaan & Amrofell, 1994; Mostyn, 1983). Volunteers reported different benets to be of importance: appraisal and approval (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2008); training and career enhancement (Zakour, 1994); responding to different needs (Miller, 1990); and economically worthwhile benets (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Cnaan and Amrofell (1994) divided volunteering benets into ve categories: tangible or material rewards that are not pay-for services; internal rewards and a good feeling about oneself; social interaction rewards; norms and social pressure (relieved); and avoidance rewards. In addition to the perceived benets of volunteering, Wilson (2000) reviewed actual benets and positive consequences such as better physical and mental health, addressing social problems (for example anti-social behavior of youth), and building civic society. If the idea is that people calculate their costs and benets to see if their volunteering work is protable, then the costs and difculties of volunteering should also be acknowledged. The literature indicates three major costs related to volunteering: less available time and a feeling that volunteering takes more time than expected (Blake & Jefferson, 1992; Omoto & Snyder, 1993); stigma and negative social reaction, due to working with controversial organizations or populations (such as AIDS patients or anti-governmental organizations; Omoto & Snyder, 1993); and psychological difculties like burnout, secondary trauma, stress and despair (Capner & Caltabiano, 1993; Cyr & Doerick, 1991; HaskiLeventhal, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2004). As Chinman and Wandersman (1999) showed, costs and benets are also related to the kind of organization and role the volunteers undertake. Economists tried to explain altruism by offering formula to calculate the cost-benet ratio of altruism, and by focusing on the bottom line: the economic prot of volunteering, both to the volunteer and to society (Andreoni, 1995). Others have tried to calculate the monetary value of volunteering. For example, Independent Sector (2001) concluded that the volunteer workforce gave approximately 15.5 billion hours a year, representing the equivalent of over 9 million full-time jobs at a value of $239 billion. In various studies, Handy and her colleagues (Cnaan et al., 1996; Handy et al., 2000; Meijs et al., 2003) examined public perceptions on who is a volunteer and showed that an activity was often considered volunteering, if the costs involved were high. Thus the concept of net-cost in volunteering emerged. Researchers used economics to study volunteering, but the results of these studies showed that people actually perceive volunteering as non-economical. Is volunteering economical? Knox (1999) disagreed with the narrow economist approach to study altruism and volunteering. In his article, the volunteers folly and
287
the socio-economic man, his argument was that volunteering is not folly, but rather that economic rationality is too narrow and therefore fails to give a satisfactory explanation to the altruistic choice to volunteer instead of just working and donating the money. Knox thought that volunteers can be truly altruistic and still decide to give time instead of money. He offered a wider denition, not taking for granted that altruistic acts are rational, and suggested seeing people as social, deontological and community-oriented beings.
IS ALTRUISM NATURAL? SOCIO-BIOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO ALTRUISM
Darwins natural selection theory gave an innovative explanation to the development of mankind, an alternative to the theological explanations, and impacted the emergence of other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and biology. One of the basic concepts in Darwins theory is the survival of the ttest, through struggling for existence over resources with other species or within ones own. As such, from an evolutionary point of view, it is difcult to explain why people risk their life to save others. However, altruism and self-sacrice do exist in nature. We may even nd altruistic behavior among animals: a bee sacricing itself to protect the queen supposedly acts against natures laws and its basic survival instincts. Altruistic behavior, human or not, challenged the Darwinist theory in two ways. First, how can we explain such behavior which is supposedly against our nature: sacricing oneself instead of struggling for existence? And second, how is it that people who act for the benet of others survive no less than those who do not, and that groups that encourage altruism survive even more than groups that do not? Socio-biologists dened people as altruists if they give more weight to others outcomes than to their own in deciding on game strategies (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Socio-biology addresses altruism only from the point of survival and genetic outcome, without dealing with moral questions (Sigmund & Hauert, 2002), and it does so through two main concepts: kin selection and group selection. Kin-selection is acting altruistically for a group of the same genes to assure the survival of the genes (Piliavin & Charng, 1990; Sigmund & Hauert, 2002), such as parents who die to protect their children. Group selection is helping people who are parts of ones afliation group (even with no genetic relation) in order to maintain the survival of an endangered small group (for example, Jews helping Jews). Although kin-selection and group-selection can explain both human and non-human altruism, one may still wonder if it really is altruism (since the denitions of altruism above exclude helping relatives), and what explanation can we offer for the many instances of human altruism aimed at total strangers? Fehr (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004) agreed that we may nd cooperation among animals as well, but asserted that human beings
288
differ from animals, since humans may help those outside their afliation group. Such behavior may pose some questions on evolutionism, and additional explanations are needed. Thus, the idea of reciprocal selection emerged (Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004; Sigmund & Hauert, 2002). Reciprocal selection means that people choose to help those who, in the future, could help them or their relatives, that is, for their own survival or for the survival of their genes (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Reciprocity is essential to establish cooperation in a group of egoistic individuals. Giving up ones interests for the group is not evolutionary sensible, but it was found that strong reciprocity may enhance survival (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003). Sigmund and Hauert (2002) explained that economical ties can be almost as strong as genetic ones, regarding an individuals decision whether to give up his or her resources for another. However, it is an uncertain investment, since we never know for certain if the other whom we helped will indeed help us in the future. Although this may remind us of the social exchange theory, the goods exchanged here are the survival chances of a person (or his/her relatives). However, socio-biology cannot yet fully explain altruism. Often people help others who are neither their relatives nor members of their afliation group. Sometimes altruism is demonstrated for complete strangers, for people we do not know and surely do not know if they will ever be able to help us in the future. Even the indirect reciprocal selection is not a full explanation, since not all helpers believe in cosmic justice. Recently, socio-biological explanations focused on genetic inuence on altruism and empathy. One study examined behavior among 9424 pairs of twins, to investigate the genetic and environmental inuences on prosaically behavior from early to middle childhood, and concluded that genetic effects account for change and continuity in prosocial behavior, while environment contributes mainly to change (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Other studies tried to actually point to specic genes related to altruism and prosocial behavior. It was found that the length of the gene AVPR1a RS3 was related to altruist behavior (allocation of funds in the Dictator Game). Interesting enough, a short version of this gene is related to autism (See Israel et al., in press; Knafo et al., 2007). Since all of the above socio-biological rationalizations to altruism would not fall under the narrow denition of volunteering, it was not used to explain volunteerism, and its impact of this eld of study is unclear. However, it is part of the egocentric approach which dominates the general approach to volunteering and to the vast study on volunteering as (at least partly) egoistic behavior.
THE ALTER-CENTRIC APPROACH TO ALTRUISM
In this article we demonstrated that the study of altruism and, therefore, of volunteerism in different disciplines (psychology, sociology, economics, and
289
socio-biology) has mainly been based of the egocentric perceptions of man: a rational, economical being who, above all, acts to enhance self-interest. The egocentric approach is so inherent that very rarely does anyone question it. Instead, scholars simply take it as given, make denitions and design research questions accordingly, and strive to close the gap between homo economicus and the undeniable human phenomenon of freely giving time and money to others or even of self-sacrice to save strangers. Instead of focusing on these gaps, a new approach can be offered: the altercentric approach, accepting the possibility that people sometimes act on behalf of others simply because they care about humanity and that altruism is one of their core values. Indeed, if we were all egoistic, working for our own interests and satisfaction, then we no longer need to speak about egoism. We rather need to ask why some people derive satisfaction by helping and giving, while others derive it from self-centered behavior. That is, the egocentric approach contradicts itself: if everyone is egoistic, then we only have to differ between those who enhance their own good by helping others (which should be called altruistic) and those who do that by self-centered behavior (egoistic).
The Deontological Moral Philosophy The alter-centric approach is based on the Kantian Deontological philosophy. Immanuel Kant (17241804) argued that one should act not out of tendency but out of duty; only then could ones action be considered moral. Our motivation to act is neither altruistic nor egoistic, but should be a result of our moral duty. In the Ground Work of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785/1889), Kant articulated four principles to the categorical imperative, two of which can explain how we need to perceive altruism. The principle of Universal Law is: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant, 1785: 88). We should behave with others in the same manner we would like others to behave, and, therefore, behaving altruistically is acting according to this principle, since this is the manner in which we would like everyone to act towards us. The second principle is that of End in Itself, which says: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (. . . ) never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end (p. 96). Thus, pure altruism, which sees the other as an object in itself and not as a means to achieve benets for ones self, is not only possible but also moral.
Altruism as a Continuum One way to rise above the egoistic-altruistic debate is to perceive altruism as a continuum (Krebs & Van-Hesteren, 1994) not as a dichotomy. Krebs suggested
290
that self and other are not necessarily psychologically separate entities, and that altruism is a continuum between maximum enhancement of self, and maximum enhancement of others. Usually, peoples actions are directed toward the enhancement of varying combinations of self-in-others and others-in-self. On this continuum, relative altruism is measured by two criteria: exclusiveness (exclusively helping others versus exclusively helping self) and quantity of helping (maximized or not). Thus, behavior can be mainly altruistic, even if it is not exclusively or maximally so. In The Heart of Altruism, Monroe (1996) agreed that altruism should be perceived as a conceptual continuum, which allows us to view self-interest and altruism as the two poles, between which human behavior oscillates. The world is not divided into altruists and non-altruists, she wrote, but rather the potential for altruism exists in all people (1996: 13). Monroe distinguished between pure altruism (which is helping another, even at risk to ones self) and particular altruism (which is helping only certain groups or people, perceived as worth the altruistic act due to certain features, such as similar background or family ties). Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) offered the concept of altruistic continuum. In their article on motivation to volunteer, the authors claimed that volunteering is neither egoistic nor altruistic, but usually a combination of both. The various studies on motivation to volunteer suggest that people usually volunteer out of both, and that the altruism-egoism dichotomy is articial.
Alter-Centric Theories and Models Although the ego-centric approach is fairly dominant in the study of altruism and volunteerism, over the years theories and models emerged which emphasized the alter-centric approach. Detailed are some prominent books and articles written in the alter-centric approach. Titmuss (1970) recognized the importance of altruism to society. In The Gift Relationship, Titmuss presented an altruistic approach to describe human behavior. By studying blood donors, Titmuss suggested different categories of giving, from the paid donor (which according to any denition above is not really altruism) to the voluntary community donor. Titmuss believed that human lives can be improved by human actions. His main argument was that we cannot understand human behavior and needs without recognizing altruism as a human need, not only of the beneciaries, but also of the giver. Titmuss thought there is an impulse to help others and to need others. Therefore, a true welfare state is not only examined by what it gives to its citizens, but also by the opportunities it presents so people can satisfy their need to give to others. However, Titmuss did not believe in pure altruism, acting spontaneously without any self-interest. In his opinion, there has to be a sense of duty, an agreement or an interest to guide the giver.
291
Nagel (1970) went a little further with the altruistic approach than Titmuss. In The Possibility of Altruism, Nagel examined the possibility of complete (pure) altruism and disputed the traditional egocentric approach. Based on the Kantian Deontological moral philosophy, Nagel claimed that altruism (which he dened as a willingness to act in consideration of others interests) is a moral virtue which is manifested in moral behavior, and others are the subject of such behavior. Nagel believed that altruism itself depends on recognizing the reality of others, and on regarding oneself as one individual among many. People have a direct and rational interest in helping others, without the need of moderators such as sympathy, justice and rewards, and therefore altruism and rationality are not distinct. Similar to Kants principle of universalism, Nagel thought that we want to act toward others in the same manner that we would like others to act toward us, and therefore altruistic society is what most people desire. Thus, altruism is an inner duty, and can only derive from ones core values, not out of external incentives or punishment. Nagel believed that pure altruism exists, even if combined with other motives. In their book Unto Others, Sober and Wilson (1998) claimed the egoistic approach became so rooted in peoples minds, that altruism is perceived as remarkable and unnatural. The authors discussed the ego-centric approach in psychology and social-biology (evolutionary altruism) to formulate the hypothesis according to which humans may act to benet others, even through self-sacrice, only because they care about the well-being of others as an ultimate purpose. Sober and Wilson argued that individuals can evolve to benet their group, and that group selection can evolve helping behaviors that individuals produce via mechanisms that are psychologically egoistic. Individual selection can evolve self-serving behaviors that individuals produce via mechanisms that are psychologically altruistic. In psychology, Batson (1991, 2009) argued that pure altruism is possible. Reviewing the literature on altruism in psychology and philosophy, Batson pointed that the ego-centric approach is too dominant. Through experiments, he demonstrated that people are likely to help others when empathy occurs. In The Heart of Altruism, Monroe (1996) showed that the altruism described by Nagel, as a way of perceiving others, does in fact exist, calling it the altruistic perspective. Monroe studied the behavior of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews in World War II and showed that there was no difference between rescuers and non-rescuers regarding religion, family background, or community factors. Thus, Monroe rejected the socio-cultural explanations to altruism and determined that altruist people differ from others by their moral perception, and by altruistic perspectives. This perspective was based on perceptions of shared humanity; belief in a just world, and canonical expectations of altruism as normal behavior. The altruistic rescuers perceived their altruism as something anyone would do: a reex, a deed that had to be done. Clohesy (2000) also rejected the egocentric approach to the study of altruism, and the neoclassical economists who believe people to be rational self-serving
292
beings. Clohesy relied, as others before him, on the example of Jews rescuers: people who helped strangers while risking themselves, with no external rewards, and he therefore concluded that altruism does exist. Clohesy explained that altruism is caring for others, and it does not matter what the helper may gain, since the focus should be on motivations and not on results. Khalil (2004) explained that the alter-centric approach recognizes a prosocial character which includes personal traits. Scholars who follow the alter-centric approach pay little attention to the decision-making and needs of the benefactor him/herself, but rather accept that the actors altruistic action is almost dictated by moral and obligatory dictums. According to Khalil, only a few authors have written on altruism and volunteerism according to the alter-centric approach. The fact that some of the alter-centric models and theories received a strong criticism and provoked controversy can testify for the dominance of the ego-centric approach. Additionally the impact of the alter-centric approach on the study of volunteerism was limited, as will be discussed below.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTED FURTHER STUDY
Although altruism is dened as acting on behalf of others, it was here demonstrated that the study of altruism in different disciplines is generally based on an egocentric approach and a homo economicus perception of man, seen as a rational being who acts foremost to fulll his or her own needs and interests. Accepting the Utilitarian approach to morality, it was understood that people only act to enhance their own happiness and avoid suffering. Such an approach has inuenced the study of volunteerism, the research questions as well as perceptions of the volunteer. Psychological egoism, beginning with Freud, has also found its way into developmental psychology and social psychology. In developmental psychology there are theories of the stages and development of altruism (usually according to ones life cycle), based on the idea that a person is born egoistic, and only through time and socialization learns to control these impulses. This led to a study on volunteering and age, and volunteering in adolescence and in retirement. Social psychologists have studied altruism as an interaction between a person and environment: personality traits and other virtues on the one hand, and situational factors on the other. That is an unusual situation, in which unique personal features must exist in order for altruistic behavior to take place. Thus the relationship between prosocial personality and volunteering has been studied, including the impact of different personal and situational factors on the decision to volunteer. Psychology has also led to a major interest in motivation to volunteer and there are numerous theories, models and studies on the subject. Sociologists have contributed a number of key concepts and theories to the study of altruism, such as group norms, structural and cultural feature of a
293
community, and core values. It has explained altruism as acting according to norms and expectations as well as values. Additional explanations to altruism have been based on socio-demographic factors. Sociologys impact of the study of volunteerism is mainly expressed by the vast data on socio-demographic factors, and by the concept of social resources to volunteering. Additionally, there are several studies on the value of volunteers, and cross-cultural studies comparing volunteering trends in different countries, political regimes, and cultures. The concept of homo economicus derives, naturally, from perceptions of altruism by economists, and is best expressed in the social exchange theory. This theory is the starting point for several studies on volunteering, and has led to broad research on costs and benets of volunteering, the net-cost theory and the attempts to measure the economic value of volunteering. However, this approach fails to explain why people act on behalf of others when there is no chance of social exchange, or why some give much more than they would be able to receive. The ideas of satisfaction and warm glow are not enough to explain all altruistic behavior, especially self-sacrice. The approach of socio-biology to altruism is based on the notion that in the struggle for existence, people (and animals) would do anything to assure selfsurvival and the survival of close ones (mainly genetically). As such, socio-biology has explained altruism through the concepts of kin-selection and group-selection. Since the two concepts cannot count for all altruistic behavior, the concept of reciprocityselection was offered, which also cannot explain why people sometimes help complete strangers while risking their own lives, when reciprocity is uncertain. Therefore, it is clear that none of the four disciplines here studied can offer an inclusive theory of altruism, since they base most of their research on the perception of rational, economical and utilitarian man. It is time to more broadly acknowledge the possibility of a moral and alter-centered humanity, and to see that not all altruism demonstratively serves the helper. First, altruism can be perceived as a continuum and not as a dichotomy. Second, an alter-centric approach recognizes the impact of values, conscience and altruistic perspective on altruistic attitudes and behavior. Research on volunteerism which is based on the alter-centric approach is not occupied so much by the question of why (why do people volunteer? What do they gain?). Therefore it can deal with new aspects, such as the impact of volunteering on society; the way volunteering changes the volunteer; the processes one undergoes while volunteering; the meaning of volunteering; and the relationship between the volunteer and the recipients. Debbie Haski-Leventhal Centre for Social Impact Australian School of Business, UNSW Level 6 East, UNSW, Kensington NSW 2033 debbiehl@unsw.edu.au
294
Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank David Bar-Gal, Alan York and the three anonymous reviewers of this article, for their helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Allen, N., & Rushton, J.P. (1983). The Personality of Community Mental Health Volunteers. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 12(1), 3748. Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow Versus Cold Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 121. Anheier, H.K., & Salamon, L.M. (1999). Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Initial Comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 4365. Atchley, R.C. (1971). Retirement and Leisure Participation: Continuity or Crisis? The Gerontologist, 11, 1317. Atchley, R.C. (1989). A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging. Gerontologist, 29(2), 183 190. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Batson, C.D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. New-Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Batson, C.D. (2009). These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The Social Neuroscience of Empathy (pp. 315). Cambridge: MIT Press. Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and Volunteering in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: ICS. Bierhoff, H.M., & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic Personality in the Context of the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 351365. Black, B., & DiNitto, D. (1994). Volunteers Who Work with Survivors of Rape and Battering: Motivations, Acceptance, Satisfaction, Length of Service and Gender Differences. Journal of Social Service Research, 20(1), 7397. Blake, R., & Jefferson, S. (1992). Defection . . . Why? An Insight into the Reasons for Volunteers Leaving. York, UK: Kestrecourt. Blau, P.M. (1967). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New-York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Capner, M., & Caltabiano, M.L. (1993). Factors Affecting the Progression Towards Burnout: A Comparison of Professional and Volunteer Counselors. Psychological Reports, 73(2), 555561. Chinman, M.J., & Wandersman, A. (1999). The Benets and Costs of Volunteering in Community Organizations: Review and Practical Implications. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 4664. Clary, E.G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A Functional Analysis of Altruism and Prosocial Behavior: The case of Volunteerism. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 119148. Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A.A. (1996). Volunteers Motivations: Findings from a National Survey. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485505. Clohesy, W.W. (2000). Altruism and the Endurance of the Good. Voluntas, 11(3), 237253. Cnaan, R.A. (2002). The Invisible Caring Hand: American Congregations and the Provision of Welfare. New York: New York University Press. Cnaan, R.A., & Amrofell, L. (1994). Mapping Volunteer Activity. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(4), 335351.
295
Cnaan, R.A., & Goldberg-Glen, R.S. (1991). Measuring Motivation to Volunteer in Human Services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269284. Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Dening Who is a Volunteer: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), 364383. Collard, D. (1978). Altruism and Economy. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Collard, D. (1983). Economics of Philanthropy: A Comment. Economic Journal, 93, 637 638 Cyr, C., & Doerick, P.W. (1991). Burnout in Crisis Line Volunteers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 18(5), 343354. Darley, J.M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377383. Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). Volunteering and the Values. In P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The Values of Volunteering: Cross Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 118). New-York: Plenum Publishers. Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality Structure: Emerging of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 417440. Durkheim, E. (1897/1997). Suicide (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1912/2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (C. Cosman, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, S.J., & Noyes, K.H. (1990). By the People: A History of Americans as Volunteers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The Nature of Human Altruism. Nature, 425(23), 785791. Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2004). Human Altruism: Economic, Neural, and Evolutionary Perspectives. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 14(6), 784790. Fitch, R.A. (1987). Characteristics and Motivations of College Students Volunteering for Community Service. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28(5), 424431. Freud, S. (1920). A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (G.S. Hall, Trans.). New York: Horace Liveright. Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents (J. Riviere, Trans.). London: Hogarth Press. Gidron, B. (1978). Volunteer Work and Its Rewards. Volunteer Administration, 11, 1832. Gillath, O., Shaver, P.R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R.E., Erez, A., & van Ijzendoorn, M.H. (2005). Attachment, Caregiving, and Volunteering: Placing Volunteerism in an Attachment-Theoretical Framework. Personal Relationships, 12, 425446. Handy, F., Cnaan, R.A., Brudney, J.L., Ascoli, U., Meijs, L.C.M.P., & Ranade, S. (2000). Public Perception of Who is a Volunteer: An Examination of the Net-Cost Approach from a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Voluntas, 11(1), 4565. Haski-Leventhal, D., & Cnaan, R.A. (In Press). Group Processes and Volunteering: Enhancing Recruitment and Retention. Administration in Social Work, 33 (Summer 2008). Haski-Leventhal, D. (2005). To be or not to be: Retention and Turnover Among Volunteers: Qualitative Research of Volunteers at a Rape Crisis Center. Jerusalem: Hebrew University in Jerusalem. (In Hebrew). Haski-Leventhal, D., Ben-Arieh, A., & Melton, G. (2008). Between Neighborliness and Volunteerism: The Participants in the Strong Communities Initiative. Family and Community Health, 31(2), 150161. Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnaan., R., Handy, F., et al. (2008). Students Vocational Choices and Voluntary Action: A 12-Nation Study. Voluntas. Haski-Leventhal, D., Ronel, N., York, A., & Ben-David, B. (2008). Youth Volunteering for Youth: Who are They Serving, How are They Being Served. Children and Youth Services Review.
296
Herman, K.C., & Usita, P.M. (1994). Predicting Big Brother/Big Sister Volunteer Attrition with the 16 PF. Child & Youth Care Forum, 23(3), 207211. Hodgkinson, V.A. (2003). Volunteering in Global Perspective. In P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The Values of Volunteering: Cross Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 3554). New-York: Plenum Publishers. Hoffman, M.L. (1975). The Development of Altruistic Motivation. Paper Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (Denver, Colorado, April 10, 1975). Hoffman, M.L. (1978). Psychological and Biological Perspectives on Altruism. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(4), 323339. Independent Sector (2001). Giving and Volunteering in the United States. Washington DC: Independent Sector. Israel, S., Lerer, E., Shalev, I., Uzefovsky, F., Reibold, M., Bachner-Melman, R., Granot, R., Bornstein, G., Knafo, A., Yirmiya, N., & Ebstein, R.P. (in press). Molecular Genetic Studies of the Arginine Vasopressin 1a Receptor (AVPR1a) and the Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) in Human Behavior: From Autism to Altruism with Some Notes in Between. Progress in Brain Research. Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to Voluntarism: Family Socialization and Status Transmission Models. Social Forces, 74, 271292. John, O.P. (1990). The Big Five Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and in Questionnaires. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New-York: Guilford Press. Jones, F. (2000). Youth Volunteering on the Rise. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 12, 36 42. Kant, I. (1785/1889). Ground Work of the Metaphysic of Morals. Katz, D. (1960). The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163204. Khalil, E.L. (2004). What is Altruism? Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 97123. Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial Behavior from Early to Middle Childhood: Genetic and Environmental Inuences on Stability and Change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771786. Knafo, A., Israel, S., Darvasi, A., Bachner-Melman, R., Uzefovsky, F., Cohen, L., Feldman, E., Lerer, E., Laiba, E., Raz, Y., Nemanov, L., Gritsenko, I., Dina, C., Agam, G., Dean, B., Bornstein, G., & Ebstein, R.P. (2007). Individual Differences in Allocation of Funds in the Dictator Game and Postmortem Hippocampal mRNA Levels are Correlated with Length of the Arginine Vasopressin 1a Receptor (AVPR1a) RS3 Promoter-Region Repeat. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 7, 266275. Knox, T.M. (1999). The Volunteers Folly and Socio-Economic Man: Some Thoughts on Altruism, Rationality, and Community. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(4), 475492. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2004). Conscience in Childhood: Past, Present, and Future. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 299310. Krebs, D.L. (1982). Psychological Approaches to Altruism: An Evaluation. Ethics, 92, 147158. Krebs, D.L., & Van-Hesteren, F. (1994). The Development of Altruism: Towards an Integrative Model. Developmental Review, 14(2), 103158. Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: a Factor in Evolution. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. Lau, W., Craig-lees, M., & Harris, J. (2004, December). The Role of Dispositional and Situational Variables in Volunteering. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2004 Conference Proceedings, Wellington, New Zealand. McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Denition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 624.
297
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mead, G.H. (1970). Self as Social Object. In G.P. Stone, & H.A. Farberman (Eds.), Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction (pp. 383386). Lexington, MA: Xerox College Publishing. Mees, U., & Schmitt, A. (2008). Goals of Action and Emotional Reasons for Action: A Modern Version of the Theory of Ultimate Psychological Hedonism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(2), 157178. Meijs, L.C.P.M., Handy, F., Cnaan, R.A., Brudney, J.L., Ascoli, U., Ranade, S., Hustinx, L., Weber, S., & Weiss, I. (2003). All in the Eyes of the Beholder? Perceptions of Volunteering Across Eight Countries In: P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The Value of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, (pp.1935) New York: Kluwer Plenum. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2005). Attachment, Security, Compassion, and Altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 3438. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R.A. (2005). Attachment, Caregiving, and Altruism: Boosting Attachment Security Increases Compassion and Helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817839. Mill, J.S. (1861/1971). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co. Miller, L.E., Powell, G.N., & Seltzer, J. (1990). Determinants of Turnover Among Volunteers. Human Relations, 43(9), 901917. Mitchell, T.L., Griffin, K., Stewart, S.H., & Loba, P. (2004). We will Never Forget . . .: The Swissair Flight 111 Disaster and Its Impact on Volunteers and Communities. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(2), 245262. Monroe, K.R. (1996). The Heart of Altruism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton Press. Monroe, K.R. (2001). Altruism and Self-Interest, In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (pp. 415418). Oxford: Elsevier. Mostyn, B. (1983). The Meaning of Voluntary Work: A Qualitative Investigation. In S. Hatch, (Ed.), Volunteers: Patterns, Meanings & Motives (pp. 2450). London: The Volunteer Centre. Nagel, T. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Okun, M., & Michel, J. (2006). Sense of Community and Being a Volunteer Among the Young-Old. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 173188. Oliner, S., & Oliner, P.M. (1988). The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: The Free Press. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (1993). AIDS Volunteers and Their Motivations: Theoretical Issues and Practical Concerns. Nonprot Management and Leadership, 4(2), 157176. Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of Community: The Context and Process of Volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846867. Omoto, A.M., Snyder, M., & Martino, S.C. (2000). Volunteerism and the Life Course: Investigating Age-Related Agenda for Action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 181 197. ONeil, M. (2001). Research on Giving and Volunteering: Methodological Considerations. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 505514. Pearce, J.L. (1993). Volunteers: The Organizational Behavior Of Unpaid Workers. London and New-York: Routledge. Penner, L.A. (2002). Dispositional and Organizational Inuences on Sustained Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447467. Penner, L.A. (2004). Volunteerism and Social Problem: Making Things Better or Worse? Journal of Social Issues, 60(3), 645666. Penner, L.A., & Finkelstein, M.A. (1998). Dispositional and Structural Determinants of Volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525537.
298
Piliavin, J.A. (2001). Sociology of Altruism and Pro-Social Behavior, In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (pp. 411415). Oxford: Elsevier. Piliavin, J.A., & Charng, H.W. (1990). Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 2765. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NewYork: Simon and Schuster. Qureshi, H., Challis, D., & Davis, B. (1983). Motivations and Rewards of Helpers in the Kent Community Care Scheme. In S. Hatch, (Ed.), Volunteers: Patterns, Meanings & Motives, (pp. 144166). London: The Volunteer Centre. Raskoff, S., & Sundeen, R.A. (1994). The Ties that Bond: Teenage Volunteers in the U.S. California: School of Public Administration. Raskoff, S., & Sundeen, R.A. (1998). Youth Socialization and Civic Participation: The Role of Secondary Schools in Promoting Community Service in Southern California. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 6687. Reed, P., & Selbee, L.K. (2003). Do People Who Volunteer Have a Distinctive Ethos? A Canadian Study. In P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The Values of Volunteering: Cross Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 91110). New-York: Plenum Publishers. Rokeach, M. (1969). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S.H. (2000). Value Priorities and Subjective Well-Being: Direct Relations and Congruity Effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 177 198. Sarason, S.B. (1974). The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for Community Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E.H. (1980). Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schondel, C., & Boehm, K.E. (2000). Motivational Needs of Adolescent Volunteers. Adolescence, 35, 335344. Schondel, C., Boehm, K.E., Rose, J., & Marlowe, A. (1995). Adolescent Volunteers: An Untapped Resource in the Delivery of Adolescent Preventive Health Care. Youth and Society, 27, 123135. Shalev, S. (2003). The Altruistic Discourse: Moral, Women and Politics. Haifa, Israel: Pardes (In Hebrew). Shure, R.S. (1991). Volunteering: Continuing Expansion of the Denition and a Practical Application of Altruistic Motivation. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 9(4), 3641. Sigmund, K., & Hauert, C. (2002). Altruism. Current Biology, 12(8), R270R272. Sills, D. (1957). The Volunteers. Glecoe, IL: Free Press. Simon, B., Sturmer, S., & Steffens, K. (2000). Helping Individuals or Group Members? The Role of Individual and Collective Identication in AIDS Volunteers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 497506. Smith, D.H. (1981). Altruism, Volunteers and Volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 10(1), 2136. Smith, D.H. (1994). Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: A Literature Review. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243263. Smith, D.H. (2000). Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sober, E., & Wilson, D.S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Sorokin, P.A. (1965). The Ways and Power of Love. Chicago: Getaway. Spitz, R.T., & MacKinnon, J.R. (1993). Predicting Success in Volunteer Community Service. Psychological Reports, 73(3), 815818. Sundeen, R.A., & Raskoff. S.A. (2000). Ports of Entry and Obstacles: Teenagers Access to Volunteer Activities. Nonprot Management & Leadership, 11, 179197.
299
Terry, D.J., & Hogg, M.A. (1996). Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A Role for Group Identication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776793. Titmuss, R. (1970) The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen & Unwin. Toppe, C., & Kirsch, A.D. (2003). Faith and Philanthropy: The Connection Between Charitable Behavior and Giving to Religion. Giving and Volunteering in the United States Series. Independent Sector. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from: http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/ faithphil.pdf. Uggen, C., & Janikula, J. (1999). Volunteerism and Arrest in the Transition to Adulthood. Social Forces, 78, 331362. Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Change Social Economy. U.S.A: The Foundation Center. White, K.M., Terry, D.J., & Hogg, M.A. (1994). Safer Sex Behavior: The Role of Attitudes, Norms, and Control Factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2164 2192. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215240. Wilson, J., & Musick M.A. (1998). The Contribution of Social Resources to Volunteering. Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 799814. Wilson, J., & Musick, M.A. (1999). Attachment to Volunteering. Sociological Forum, 14(2), 243271. Yeung, A.B. (2004). The Octagon Model of Volunteer Motivation: Results of a Phenomenological Analysis. Voluntas, 15(1), 2146. Zahn-Waxler, C. (1991). The Case for Empathy: A Developmental Perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 155158. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The Origins of Empathic Concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14(2), 107130. Zahn-Waxler C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of Concern for Others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126136. Zakour, M.J. (1994). Measuring Career-Development Volunteerism: Guttman Scale Analysis Using Red Cross Volunteers. Journal of Social Service Research, 19(3), 103120.

Altruism and Volunteerism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Altruism and Volunteerism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39:3 0021-8308