This week I would like to attempt to tackle the controversial issue of prosocial behavior, specifically altruism. Altruism is defined as any act helping others, that does in no way benefit the helper and is done without self-interest in mind.
A question has long been contemplated by social psychologists and citizens alike: does altruism really exist? Can someone truly do something for another person without some sort of personal gain?
For instance, take Abe Zelmanowitz, a victim of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Zelmanowitz was on the 27th floor of the North Tower when the second plane hit floors above him. Instead of instantly fleeing to safety, Zelmanowitz stayed on the 27th floor with his friend and coworker Ed Beyea, who was confined to a wheelchair, waiting for firefighters to help transport Beyea downstairs. Both Zelmanowitz and Beyea were killed when the North Tower fell.
Zelmanowitz’s behavior was undoubtedly heroic and incredibly selfless. But, was staying with his friend an act of real altruism? Zelmanowitz sacrificed his life for the possibility of saving his friend, which is something to be respected, but was this truly altruism?
The Social Exchange Theory argues no. In fact, it asserts that altruism does not even exist. This theory states that any prosocial behavior, any seemingly selfless act, does in some way bring the doer of this act reward. This reward could be an increased probability that the person you helped will eventually help you in a time of need. It could be to relieve the personal distress of seeing someone unhappy or in need. And, very importantly, it could be to provide one with feelings of self-worth.
Social exchange theorists would, of course, consider Zelmanowitz’s actions brave, but they reiterate that those courageous actions brought him psychological rewards. They would most likely focus on the idea that helping others increases self-esteem.
When I say self-esteem, I am referring to something intrinsic, something inherent in the human psyche. Self-esteem is much more deeply rooted in our subconscious than our casual understanding of the term implies. The need to be liked and accepted, to feel good about yourself, is one of our most basic motivations. It frames our perceptions of the world and induces different behaviors.
How would Zelmanowitz have lived with himself if he had deserted his friend? How would he feel about himself if he had fled when Beyea needed him the most? By remaining by Beyea’s side in a time of great chaos and fright, by helping another person, Zelmanowitz was able to retain his self-esteem, not in a vain way, but in a primal and intensely human way. Social exchange theorists would argue that this subconscious reward discredits the claim that Zelmanowitz acted altruistically.
So, I challenge you. Can you think of a time that you helped someone and did not receive any form of reward, no matter how small, for that behavior? Ask yourself, does altruism really exist? While the Social Exchange Theory is, in fact, cynical, it may just be correct.
This is actually very interesting. In the beginning, I believed that altruism was true, especially when you brought up Zelmanowitz and Beyea. However, when you presented the counterargument of the social exchange theory it made sense. In the summer I am a lifeguard at my local pool, and I have had to save around 15 people in my three years of working. Before reading this post, I just thought that I was doing this for the greater good. Although, in the end, I realized that the idea that I am getting a paycheck definitely entices me to jump in and help these victims.
I must agree that I no longer believe that altruism can work in its pure definition. I have had doubts about whether it was truly a characteristic that occurs in humans, considering the psychological benefits that you had mentioned. During high school, I would volunteer at a therapeutic horseback riding center on Saturday mornings. I grappled with myself over it, as I would be praised for doing something so selfless, but I knew that I did it because I liked the good feeling that came with helping the students. I got a reward whenever they did well because I felt that I had contributed to their success and benefited from it as well. I do not think this detracts from our good deeds, but it is important to acknowledge that we are not as selfless as we may think we are.
I find this fascinating in relation to the current study I’m completing regarding authentic transformational leadership which relies on the existence of altruism as an explanation for the most appropriate level of leadership available. Aside from altruism, even authenticity is called to question when applied to the lens of SET. In answer to the main question I regularly like to help others out (I’m the reference guy at work). I would describe this behavior as belonging more to my social identity as opposed to that used for social exchange. Is it still altruism if you do the right thing because others have taught you it’s right? Thanks for inspiring some reflection on this.
I find the discussion boring and self indulgent. Human nature is inherently greedy. History is littered with people who want to have power, and want to accumulate wealth, oblivious to the suffering of others. Regardless of why and what personal self esteem is attained, to give should not be subject to cynical distain. History also shows that good always transcends evil, not least because of the survival instinct of living things. If the psychopathic dictators of the world succeeded, humanity would be decimated. Caligula, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussain, Putin can never conquer the human spirit to eventually restore compassion in society. To label good only exists because of self interest is simplistic and cynical. Whether having spiritual faith or being atheist does not change the instinct of good over evil. We should honour and respect the Ghandis and Mandela’s of the world
Cameron