Blog 2: "The Kindness Paradox"

Abstract

There are many theories about the motivations for acts of kindness. These generate from the observation of social and intinctive behaviours, and often, theorists attempt to explain this social behaviour using a combination of the two. Social influence can play a large role in altruistic behaviour, as can one's self-image. While social psychologists are often interested in why people help others, it is also quite interesting to see who they are more likely to help. Different techniques have been developed throughout the years to help answer these questions and will be discussed in this essay.

Discussion of “The Kindness Paradox”

Benjamin Franklin, American inventor and pioneer, once stated that “"he that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged”. This is known as the “Benjamin Franklin Effect” or "The Kindness Paradox". Franklin’s statement implies acts of kindness and altruism; concepts which have been explained through the development of social psychological theories. The application of these theories to different studies has led to the understanding of what influences people to perform acts of kindness by examining the roles of psychology and society in altruistic behaviour.

Kindness may be defined as a helpful act towards someone in need (Myers, 2004) or may proceed from “a good-natured readiness to benefit or please others” (Burgquist, 1975). Benevolence and acting cordially towards others has been shown to be of benefit to those both at the giving and receiving end (Post, 2005). One study investigating the relationship between helping behaviour and good health found there was a strong positive correlation between these two variables and also indicated benefits for overall well-being, happiness and longevity (Post, 2005).

Motives for acts of kindness have also been observed by many social theorists. Social psychologists have found that helpful behaviour is both influenced by how someone is viewed by others and how one thinks of themselves (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Normative influence is a concept that discusses the importance for humans to belong to social groups (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). While this need for affiliation has relevance to survival, it also appears to have strong social and emotional considerations which assist in decreasing ingroup threat (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Therefore, people generally conform to the behaviours and attitudes of others to avoid any social awkwardness or confrontation (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

Support for Benjamin Franklin’s claim is apparent in the foot-in-the-door technique. This phenomenon explains that when somebody is asked a small favour, their willingness to comply with larger favours after that is much more probable (Gueguen & Jacob, 2001). One recent study looked into the effects of using the foot-in-the-door technique when asking for electronic donations through the internet. Results showed that there was a significant increase in the likelihood of people donating to the requested charity when small requests were made of the participant prior to a large and final demand (Gueguen & Jacob, 2001).

Another aspect to kindness is self-concept. People generally like to create a good impression of themselves to those around themselves (Myers, 2004), however it appears that maintaining a healthy self-image is also important when demonstrating kindness (Schneider & Eustis, 1972; Foehl & Goldman, 1983). Self-image influences the type of behaviour displayed or even whether they exhibit at all (Foehl & Goldman, 1983). A study investigating self-concept, altruistic behaviour and the foot-in-the-door technique found that participants who were given the label “helpful” or “altruistic” were far more likely to show these characteristics than those who did not receive labels (Foehl & Goldman, 1983). Experiments such as these demonstrate the importance of factors such as high self-esteem and altruistic personality traits when analysing kindness. It also supports the notion that the actions humans perform are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

While Benjamin Franklin’s statement suggests altruism and pure generosity to be the key features contributing to acts of kindness, other research proposes alternate motives. Being liked, or what is psychologically termed ingratiation, appears fundamental in determining both the quality and quantity of generous actions (Seiter, 2007). One study demonstrated this by analysing the tipping behaviour of customers in a restaurant towards those serving them. Those who were complimented by the person they were being served by throughout the evening gave more generously than those who did not receive compliments (Seiter, 2007). It appears that while some helpful acts are based on generosity and pure giving, others depend highly on reciprocity.

The norm of reciprocity is one of the underlying motives for kindness. Contrary to the beliefs suggested by Benjamin Franklin’s quote, humans generally do give to receive (Burger, Horita, Kinoshita, Roberts, Vera, 1997; Myers, 2004). Ultimately, before an action of giving is performed (such as donating to a charity or volunteering time, one will tend to weigh up the costs and benefits of this action so that the rewards are in their favour (Myers, 2004). Examples of reciprocity can be found all over the world throughout almost every culture; from the Buddhist concept of Karma to the everyday functioning of most societies (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Reciprocity works as a motivator for giving because people feel obliged to do something nice for those who have done a favour for them. Social psychologists commonly refer to this as the social exchange theory, where both parties benefit from the giving behaviour (Myers, 2004).

The words of Franklin suggest benefits to individuals and the wider community, similar to altruism. Sheer altruism is perhaps considered the highest expression of kindness and pro-social behaviour. It is defined by giving and expecting nothing in return, but is often at the scrutiny and scepticism of others (Myers, 2004). The classic psychological example to support this cynicism is that of the bystander effect. This phenomenon analyses the behaviours of others when placed in a situation where they are given the opportunity to help someone in need (Darley & Batson, 1973). More often than not, people become slower to respond to the situation because of decreased sense of responsibility to act (Darley & Batson, 1973). Countless social experiments have been performed in order to investigate helping behaviour through this method. One experiment in particular, showed that time constraints also played a role in determining whether a person would stop to help another (Darley & Batson, 1973). While there may be several excuses or reasons for not stopping to offer help to someone in need, altruism in its truest form should not be dependent on additional social and personal pressures.

Finally, it is apparent that there is some element of similarity when it comes to defining what motivates kindness, whether genetically or socially (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Though humans mingle with a variety of different peers throughout their lives, it is clear that it is those who they are related to that they are more willing to help and are most generous towards (Karbo, 2006). In terms of the survival of ones genes, this reason for giving is fairly logical. Research has even proven that people are more likely to assist those who are closer to them genetically. For instance, a mother is far more likely to help her child in need then she is her cousin (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Benjamin Franklin perhaps recognised this also when he said this now famous quote. The words he said suggest helping behaviour goes on between two people who share a common link. Socially, individuals who share common beliefs, traits or physical characteristics tend to group together and help one another to assist the group as a whole (Karbo, 2006). This relates to what was said earlier about conformity and reducing ingroup threat.

In addition, this kinship theory suggests that the motivations for being kind or unkind can depend on physical or emotional closeness, the amount of “liking” that is transferred between the two individuals and also the amount of pressure they experience to help socially and morally (Karbo, 2006). A study conducted in 1969 demonstrated that giving, rather than receiving, is what makes a person like and value another (Burger & Caldwell, 2003). In this study, participants were given the opportunity to win some money. Participants were divided into 3 groups and asked to rate how much they liked the research conductor. Group A and B were told, before giving their rating, that the money they had “won” was either that of the researcher or that of the psychology department running the experiment. The participants were then asked to return the money, most of whom were happy to oblige. Group C was not asked to return the money and rated the researcher lowest out of any group. This outcome perhaps shows that the participants who had the most personal contact with the researcher were more likely to rate the researcher highly. Also, this contact and also the act of helping out another may have increased the students’ level of liking of the researcher, making them more willing to give them a high rating (Karbo, 2006; Burger & Caldwell, 2003). This study demonstrates it is clear that motivations to act kindly can be influenced by the justification that a person deserves to be treated well.

The Benjamin Franklin Effect is a simplistic explanation as to why people exhibit altruistic behaviour. However, theories such as the norm of reciprocity, better explain the laws of giving. Acts of kindness are influenced by a combination of vary factors unique to the individual, the group and the surrounding environment. It is when all of these factors are taken into account that a true understanding of the nature of kindness can be gained.

Word count: 1497

References

Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bergquist, S. R. (1975). New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language. New York, USA: Consolidation Book Publishers.

Burger, J. M. & Caldwell, D. F. (2003). The monetary effects of incentives and labelling on the foot-n-the-door effect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 235-241.

Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., Vera, C. (1997). The effects of time on reciprocity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 91-100.

Darley, J. M. & Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho” – A study of dispositional and situational variables in helping behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

Foehl, J. C. & Goldman, M. (1983). Increasing altruistic behaviour using compliance techniques. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 21-29.

Gueguen, N. & Jacob, C. (2001). Fund-raising on the web: The effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 4, 705-708.

Karbo, K. (2006). Friendship: The laws of attraction. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4195.html&fromMod=popular_relationships

Myers, D.G. (2004). Psychology (7^th ed.). Michigan, USA: Worth Publishers.

Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 12, 65-77.

Schneider, D. J. & Eustis, A. C. (1972). Effects of ingratiation motivation, target positiveness, and revealingness on self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 149-155.

Seiter, J. S. (2006). Ingratiation and Gratuity: The Effect of Complimenting Customers on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York, New York City, NY Online Retrieved 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p11563_index.html

Appendix A: Self Assessment
Theory:
Compared to my last blog, I feel my use of social psychological theory to support my research has greatly improved. I have used a variety of different terms to express, contribute to and define the assignment topic. The theory that I've used guided me in structure and how to best approach the question.

Research:

Again, compared to my last blog, I feel I have acknowledged many sources before selecting those most relevant. I found many journal articles and websites relating to the subject which gave me a reasonable amount of insight into what I could then discuss.

Written Expression:

I feel that my APA style of writing is fairly sound. I do sometimes have trouble simplifying what I'm trying to say but I believe I'm improving in this area. Overall, my ability to express my points through writing are satisfactory, however, the structure of my esay could perhaps be improved on.

Online Engagement:

I have made a bigger effort this term regarding online engagement. I have made use of the discussion board, made a poll to develop ideas related to the blog and commented on a one person's blog but responded to the postings of others on my own blog. I've also increased the number of my own postings this term. I have used blogging to develop ideas for my final blog and have also discussed tutorial topics to reflect on the issues over the last few weeks. Generally, I think my online engagement has been reasonable but could have been better.

Comments on the blogs of others:

Debbi's Blog - Aussie Citizenship Test