Altruism as a form of helping behavior forms the cornerstone of societal cohesion, the everyday well-being of individuals and the central manifestation of human values. Still, much research views humans and humanity in a way best described in David Hume's words as “homo homini lupus.” Altruism is thus often neglected as a secondary ad hoc explanation, as its explanatory power compared to selfishness is considered to be less. This, however, need not − nor should it − be the case with altruism. Appreciation of various forms of altruism can bring considerable benefit for the understanding of the interaction between people both in theoretical considerations and empirical studies.
Altruism, an essential and pivotal part of humanity, can be regarded as a universal phenomenon, since it is found in all known societies. However, the forms of altruism vary greatly between and within societies and probably between different eras in the same societies. Today's societal context creates an especially interesting framework for altruism: While individuals are less dependent on traditional social ties and traditions, they are increasingly tied to other types of networks, including global ones. Individuals live in the midst of multiple novel networks in several senses of the word; people may, for instance, not be interested in helping their neighbors but have godchildren on the other side of the world. As the networks of individuals are changing, so too is altruism. The changes in the forms of altruism and helping behavior might even be playing a role in the transformation of social networks.
Altruism, in general, refers to actions that take other human beings into consideration: action concerned with the well-being of others. The concept was brought into the social sciences by Auguste Comte (1798–1857) in the mid-nineteenth century as the antonym of selfishness. The term derives from the Latin words “alter” and “other.” In Comte's often restated view, individuals have two distinct motives: egoism and altruism; the latter for him is “the most important sociological question.” Similar views were later put by Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) in his early work “The Division of Labour in Society.” Durkheim argues that wherever there are communities, there is altruism since communities exhibit solidarity. Durkheim linked egoism and altruism to the deepening of the societal division of labor, the transformation from mechanical to organic solidarity. Likewise, he linked egoism and altruism to the maintenance of moral communality demanded by and included in the transformed solidarity. According to Durkheim, both egoism and altruism have been a part of each human consciousness from the very beginning: consciousness that does not reflect these elements cannot exist. For Durkheim, unselfishness is expected to come from the deepest foundation of our social life; people cannot live together without mutual understanding, and thus without mutual sacrifice, and without being bonded together in a strong, durable manner.
Altruism entails action.
The action must be goal-directed, either consciously or reflexively.
The goal must concern the welfare of another.
Intentions count more than consequences.
The act must carry some possibility of decrease in the actor's own welfare.
There must be no conditions or anticipation of reward.
A further age-old debated issue concerns whether altruism really exists; what is the relation between selfishness and non-selfishness in helping-behavior. It is actually logically rather difficult to demonstrate altruism to those thinking that helping is always inherently selfish; for instance, those who do personally value altruism most likely do derive positive feelings from altruistic behavior. Thus, a cynic can always claim that there is always a selfish gain. She/he could respond that it may be true that helping others brings one pleasure, yet this is by no means the same as showing that one has helped in order to primarily please oneself. Similarly, as noted by Felscher and Worthen (2007), pleasure, as such, is never an end motive in itself but something causes one pleasure; the fact that altruism brings joy particularly indicates true altruistic motives that have been provided by biological and cultural evolution (both nature and nurture).
Additionally, a continuum perspective from pure egoism to pure altruism can be utilized as a key to this dilemma: the problem with theories of motivation based on self-interest is not that they are false but that they are only partly true. In other words, neither egoism nor altruism is adequate explanation on its own. Considering the pure form of thinking and acting (either egoism or altruism) as extremely rare, and taking most human thinking and behavior as including elements of both these poles, leads to an understanding that helping others and gaining joy from it (or the increased social respect and status) are two sides of the same coin.
There are overall considerable fundamental differences in the criteria for altruism in the literature; in other words, what is considered “pure altruism” or even just “altruism” and “helping behaviour,” looking at these phenomena in the continuum perspective. Some scholars consider that altruism resembles self-sacrifice and heroism, while others link it more loosely to pro-social behavior, taking it as a synonym for helping-behavior. How then does one resolve this puzzle of the criteria for altruism? One solution is to return to the original concept in Latin — altruism is “other-ism,” behavior that primarily takes the other into account, as a starting point. The essence of altruism then is in putting someone else's welfare and well-being above one's own benefit.
Seeing altruism as “other-ism” does not prevent one from being able to separate something that could be labelled as “more extreme altruism” from “milder altruism”; different forms of altruism indeed can be seen as a continuum − not only forming a continuum from egoism, but a continuum of their own. Many researchers have indeed rejected the dichotomy between egoism and altruism in various frames of reference, e.g., in educational studies and psychology (Krebs & Van Hesteren, 1992).
The mainstream of the altruism discussion in various disciplines can be seen as roughly constituting three eras. At the first stage, up to the 1970s, the discussions concerning altruism in different disciplines went on in their own spheres and contexts, and there was little interaction between disciplines. Furthermore, much social science research focused on more negative aspects of human action, such as crime. All in all, the altruism research of the time – at least in hindsight – was not all that productive, considering the amount of further research and the number of significant publications.
In the second era of altruism research, from the middle of the 1970s to the early 1990s, work in various disciplines and applications was marked by disputing and questioning unselfish altruism. Researchers aimed to show that phenomena appearing to be altruistic ultimately serve the altruist's own interest and own good. Even actions that in the short term can be interpreted as altruistic were discovered to work to the advantage of the altruist in the long term. This view was reflected most clearly in sociobiology and economics research in which altruism was interpreted mainly as nepotism or efficient solutions to recurring problems.
During the third era of altruism research, the last 15 years, the questions have changed again and common themes for research have increased. More importantly, in social psychology, sociology, economics and political science, a clear paradigm shift away from the position that behavior must reveal egoistic motivation has taken place, recent theory and data being more compatible with the view that “true altruism” does exist. The starting point of research is to a greater extent “pro-social” behavior, the human being considered capable of unselfish altruism which cannot be reduced to favoring of relatives.
The various disciplines focus on different elements in their explanations of altruism. Sociocultural explanations focus on the demographic correlations of altruism (religion, age, gender, wealth, education, political views, etc.). Economic explanations, on the other hand, consider altruism a good, and stress the role of the rewards of altruism (material or psychological). Evolutionary biology and psychology base their explanations on very similar grounds to economic explanations. Biologists stress kin and/or group selection and emphasise elements such as birth order and community size. Psychologists prefer to emphasise developmental matters (socialisation, level of cognitive development, etc.) in their altruism explanations, as well as more contextual elements such as norms and culture (e.g., habits of reciprocity, moral judgements).
One of the most heated debates on altruism has recently taken place in evolutionary studies in biology and psychology. The early version of kin-selection theory has been traced to the father of the evolution theory, Charles Darwin (1809–1882), who explained the altruistic behavior of ants by natural selection, the survival of the fittest, which applies at the level of the family. A central source of tension in evolutionary studies has then been the question of the extent to which social and cultural behavior ultimately supports biological and genetic objectives. The core debate concerns the question of whether altruism is developed − and to what extent − by individual-selection, kin-selection, or group-selection, or is it rather a question of co-evolution in which the evolution of genes and cultures is quite closely linked.
The game theories of evolution biology, as well as those in economics, have identified the altruistic and cooperative inclinations of humans. Altruism has been tested using these classic games (e.g., Prisoner's Dilemma, Ultimatum) in which short- and long-term advantages of an individual's are set in contrast to each other, and the solutions of the second players determine the usefulness of one's own strategy. Game theory experiments have repeatedly shown that individuals cooperate more than the rational choice theory predicts. Furthermore, in repeated games patterns of reciprocity between the players soon appear. Also findings in neurobiology indicate that in situations in which one player would have cooperated but the co-player would not, there is a negative response in the dopamine system in the more cooperative player's brain.
In more empirically oriented studies of altruism there are two strong currents of research. First, several researchers have analysed heroes and their choices. Subjects of such hero research have included people who saved Jews during the Second World War, and people who have led an exceptionally altruistic life such as Gandhi or Mother Teresa. In these cases individuals have made choices that underscore the common good and require sacrifices, choices that have deviated from the dominant cultural models. Organ and blood donation research forms the second study area, most of which has sought the donors' motivation.
Cognition; cognitive framework and processing, including intentionality, agency as well as both biological and cultural self; in other words, the processes by which people come to make sense of the world
World view; group membership and connection with others playing a crucial role
Canonical expectations concerning what is normal, or what is ordinary; expectations
Empathy and/or sympathy including both cognitive and affective elements; resulting from socialisation and developmental processes
Views of self; identity and perception of who one is, including in relation to others
Various scholars have provided evidence supporting the theory that altruism is learned and can be further developed by teaching and learning. Hunt (1990) has summed up three elements that are characteristic of altruists, particularly altruistic children: being (1) happy, well-adjusted and socially popular, (2) being sensitive and emotionally expressive and (3) having high self-esteem. Thus, teaching by parents, schools, civil society agents, among others that support these elements will also support the development of altruism.
In the forthcoming studies, the best basis for altruism research is not to strictly separate the core phenomenon from closely related pro-social acts such as giving, sharing and co-operating. Rather, innovative research exploring individual-level experiences and views concerning networks of altruism is needed: for instance, what constitutes altruism, and particularly networks of altruism, for late-modern individuals? Such research would both benefit the interdisciplinary links and the links between theory and praxis. Thus some re-direction of research must be accounted for. Five such ways will be outlined next.
First, in order to understand altruism in the context of the novel forms of social ties and networks, peoples' attitudes, trust and expectations – not only deeds – should be accounted for. Researchers should not divide people beforehand into altruists and non-altruists or offer presumptions about where to find the altruists, but explore the present-day experiences and views of altruism with more open eyes. What is the nature and substance of altruism networks now?
Second, previous research has largely restricted itself one-sidedly to the acts of altruism by individuals as givers, not receivers. However, in order to understand altruism as a societal and social phenomenon, both directions should be explored. The present-day support and altruism is highly likely to include sporadic and hybrid stories of altruism, as well as series of such stories, and should be studied as such.
Third, our understanding of altruism will remain limited if focus is placed simply on individuals, neglecting the role of social groups and institutions in the construction, well-being and maintenance of altruistic values. Even though public institutions such as welfare agencies, schools, associations and churches do not assist or teach altruistic norms primarily because they experience altruistic wishes (but have, for example, statutory responsibilities and regulations), individuals' expectations and trust in institutional support should be explored. It would also be valuable to explore the way the individuals view the role institutions have in promoting societal values and common faith in compassion and altruism.
Fourth, in order to understand experiences and views of altruism more thoroughly, one should include not only the life-cycle viewpoint (past–present–future), but also a wide range of cognitive, rational, emotional and societal elements. Traditionally, explanations of altruism (sociocultural, economic, biological and psychological) have all focused primarily on the explanations found in their own niches. Furthermore, most studies have primarily emphasised cognitive factors. Additionally, both values and, for instance, religion-related elements affect views, acts and attitudes of altruism, as well as individual faith and trust in the networks of altruism supporting them.
Fifth, altruism is methodologically most often studied through extreme cases (e.g., people rescuing Jews during the Second World War) and instances quite distinct from individual everyday lives (e.g., blood and organ donation). One next step in altruism research should involve exploration of everyday experiences and views of altruism through combining survey and qualitative data.
Research taking these notions into consideration will enable better understanding of the nature of altruism in the intricate present-day interconnections between individualism and collectivism.
The relationship between altruism and civil society is a dual process; different forms of altruism promote civil society and participating in civil society activities promotes altruism and altruistic values. In other words, civil society socializes us into further altruism. Altruism is usually thought to decrease when the group-size increases. Moreover, the further the group is from an individual, the less altruism. Civil society may transform perspective, even to global spheres. Involvement in civil society may “mess up” the circles; a group not so close to an individual might start to feel closer; it may come to represent one of the meaningful others to an individual, also in altruistic sense.