0021-8308
jtsb_405
271..299
INTRODUCTION
272
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
273
274
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 influential 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 influenced 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 influence 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 first 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 final 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)
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
276
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 fulfill safety needs) and instrumental cooperation, to mutual altruism
(sensitivity to others in general, fulfilling 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 identification with humanity). Very few reach the last
stage: universal self-sacrificial 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.
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 influence 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.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
278
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 beneficiary and the existence of former acquaintances can also lead people
to help (Oliner & Oliner, 1988).
280
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 fittest 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.
282
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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
findings are not definitive. 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 affiliation is also related to volunteering
(Independent Sector, 2001; Toppe & Kirsch, 2003) and its influence can be
explained according to the structural and cultural interpretations of Durkheims
theory. First, religious affiliation 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 significant
others and increased prestige (warm-glow: Andreoni, 1995). Simon, Strumer,
and Steffens (2000) showed that the more that a person has a collective
identification 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
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
284
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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.
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-benefit 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 profit.
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 benefits or
avoiding guilt.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
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
beneficiary will try to reward his or her helper. If each of them perceives the
received benefits 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 benefit 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 benefit one another and to reciprocate for the
benefits they receive. But beneath this seeming selflessness 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).
286
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 benefits and rewards related to volunteering, showing that
volunteers reported different actual and expected intrinsic and extrinsic benefits
from volunteering (Cnaan & Amrofell, 1994; Mostyn, 1983). Volunteers reported
different benefits 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 benefits (Wilson &
Musick, 1999). Cnaan and Amrofell (1994) divided volunteering benefits into five
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
benefits of volunteering, Wilson (2000) reviewed actual benefits 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 benefits to see if their
volunteering work is profitable, then the costs and difficulties 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 difficulties 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 benefits 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-benefit ratio of altruism, and by focusing on the bottom line: the economic
profit 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
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
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 definition, not taking
for granted that altruistic acts are rational, and suggested seeing people as social,
deontological and community-oriented beings.
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 fittest, through
struggling for existence over resources with other species or within ones own. As
such, from an evolutionary point of view, it is difficult to explain why people risk
their life to save others.
However, altruism and self-sacrifice do exist in nature. We may even find
altruistic behavior among animals: a bee sacrificing 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: sacrificing
oneself instead of struggling for existence? And second, how is it that people who
act for the benefit 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 defined 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 affiliation 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 definitions 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 find cooperation among animals as well, but asserted that human beings
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
288
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
differ from animals, since humans may help those outside their affiliation 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 affiliation 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 influence on altruism
and empathy. One study examined behavior among 9424 pairs of twins, to
investigate the genetic and environmental influences 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 specific
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 definition of volunteering, it was not used to explain volunteerism,
and its impact of this field 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.
289
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
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
290
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 artificial.
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 defined
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 benefit others, even through
self-sacrifice, only because they care about the well-being of others as an ultimate
purpose. Sober and Wilson argued that individuals can evolve to benefit 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
reflex, 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
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
292
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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.
Although altruism is defined 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 fulfill 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
influenced 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
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
293
294
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 Benefits and Costs of Volunteering in
Community Organizations: Review and Practical Implications. Nonprofit 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. Nonprofit 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. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 23(4), 335351.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
295
296
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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 Influences 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 Definition and
Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 624.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
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. Nonprofit 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. Nonprofit 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 Influences 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.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
298
Debbie Haski-Leventhal
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.
Nonprofit 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 Definition 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 Identification 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. Nonprofit 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. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 179197.
2009 The Author
Journal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
299
Terry, D.J., & Hogg, M.A. (1996). Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship:
A Role for Group Identification. 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.