altruism and volunteerism

Altruism and Volunteerism: The perceptionsof altruism in four disciplines and their impacton the study of volunteerism

DEBBIE HASKI-LEVENTHALjtsb_405 271..299

INTRODUCTION

One of the important aspects of human altruism is long-term and organizedactivity for the benefit of others, that is, formal volunteering. Not every act ofvolunteering is altruistic and not every altruistic act is volunteering, but theconnection between the two concepts is so strong that one cannot speak of theone without the other. In 1957, Sills was the first to write a book on organizedvolunteering, and the study of volunteerism has since developed greatly. Scholarshave studied different aspects of volunteering such as motivation to volunteer,related cost and benefits, 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 reviewwhich binds the two. Therefore, the current article will examine the differentphilosophies that led social disciplinarians to study altruism and the ways thebasic perceptions of human behavior led to designing research of altruism and,later, the research questions regarding volunteerism.Wewill show that psychology,sociology, economy and socio-biology based their study of altruism on theperception of rational and economical man, which led to research on volunteerismwhich followed such perceptions. However, we do not intend to widely discusseach discipline but rather the approaches of the mainstream in each to altruism.

Altruism and Volunteerism Defined

Altruism, from the Latin, means for the other, caring for the alter. Differentdefinitions of altruism have emphasized the orientation toward the other, whetherexclusively or not. In his book The Altruism Question, Batson (1991: 6) definedaltruism as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing anotherswelfare. For a goal to be ultimate it must be an end in itself and not a means to

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39:30021-8308

2009 The AuthorJournal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009. Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

another goal. Hoffman (1979) defined altruism as behavior such as helping orsharing that promotes the welfare of others without conscious regard for onesown self interest (p. 2). David Horton Smith (2000), on the other hand, sawhelping others as a means to increase the helpers satisfaction. Smith definedaltruism as an inner tendency of a group or an individual, focused on givingmeaningful service(s) to other person/s, neither toward oneself nor ones family(and by that excluded parental sacrifice for a child or self-help groups). Indeed,Smith claimed, and not for the first time (see D.H. Smith, 1981), that purealtruism does not exist and that every altruistic act is basically egoistic.

Whether an altruistic act has to include some self-sacrifice is debatable. Some(for example, Sigmund & Hauert, 2002) claimed that any act for another will beconsidered altruistic if it benefits the recipient and harms the helper. If both gainfrom the interaction, then it is cooperationnot altruism. Monroe (1996: 6) alsodefined altruism as behavior intended to benefit another, even when this riskspossible sacrifice to the welfare of the actor. However, Batson (1991) argued thataltruistic motivation does not necessarily involve self-sacrifice, although it may. Inhis opinion, including self-sacrifice in the definition of altruism shifts attentionfrom motivations to consequences, while ignoring the possibility that self-benefitmay be greater, as the costs to the helper increase.

Definitions of volunteerism also focused on aspects of helping another withoutmaterial rewards, but emphasized the helpers free will. Volunteering is based onthe Latin voluns (choose) or velle (want): the choice and the (free) will to help areessential to determine volunteerism. Van Til (1988: 6) emphasized the lack ofcoerciveness in volunteering, which he identified as a helping action of anindividual that is valued by him or her, and yet is not aimed directly at materialgain or mandated or coerced by others. Ellis and Noyes (1990: 4) pointed to theimportance of free will and saw it as a positive social action, performing an actwithout coercion and going beyond ones basic obligations. However, Smith (D.H.Smith, 1981: 223) showed his disbelief in pure altruism by defining volunteeringas a behavior that is essentially motivated by the expectation of psychic benefitsof some kind as a result of activities that have a market value greater than anyremuneration received for such activities.

Cnaan, Handy and Wadsworth (1996) showed that most definitions ofvolunteerism have four main components: free will behavior, with no monetaryreward, aimed to help strangers/beneficiaries, on a long-term basis or in a formal setting.A narrow definition will include only an activity that is done completely of onesfree will, with no material rewards whatsoever, to complete strangers, and withinan organization or as long-term behavior.

Unsurprisingly, there are similarities between definitions of altruism and thoseof volunteerism. They are so similar that it is hard to understand why so little hasbeen written about the two concepts together. However, the free will concept isfound in most volunteering definitions, but not in those on altruism. Oneexplanation (for example, by Monroe, 1996) is that altruistic behavior is often

272 Debbie Haski-Leventhal

2009 The AuthorJournal compilation The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009

perceived by the helpers as a reflex, a sense of duty, whether as an inner voice(conscience) or perceived social norms and duty. Furthermore, the social-biologicalapproach sees altruism as an instinct to preserve the genes and as a reflex.

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 humannature that guide the theory and the managerial strategy that derives from it.Schein described four such perceptions: economical-rational man; social man; selfactualizing man and the complex man.

In this article we aim to show that the perception of human beings as rationaland economical underlies most theories and studies of altruism and volunteerismin social sciences. According to Schein (1980), the perception of economicalman means that people are motivated mainly by economical incentives for theirown needs, desires, satisfaction and survival. Thus, scholars in philosophy,psychology, sociology, socio-biology and economics strive to explain the selfbenefits underlying altruism. In fact, the egocentric approach is so rooted in thesedisciplines, it has become white noise that no-one seems to hear and ask aboutany longer.

According to the egocentric approach, every altruistic act is done for futurebenefit/s or cooperation, and what motivates a person to help another are thetangible and perceived benefits she or he may gain, directly or indirectly. Thisapproach actually rejects the idea of altruistic motivation to volunteer or to help,and only perceives satisfaction and benefits to the self as the true motives(Clohesy, 2000; Khalil, 2004). Such an approach ignores the emotional process ofthe helper, including feelings of empathy and sympathy. Compassion, desire tobenefit others and sacrifice, are considered as means to improve self-image andsocial appreciation. However, this approach does not explain why the helper mustact and not rely on others to help. Further, if self satisfaction is all there is toaltruism, 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 withquestions of morality. But while ancient Greek philosophy dealt with the questionof who is a moral man, modern philosophy focuses on what is moral behavior.The two main approaches in moral philosophy are the Deontological Moral ofKant (17241804) versus the Utilitarian approach of Bentham (17481832) andJohn Stuart Mill (18061873). It was the latter approach that generated theegocentric perceptions of altruism.

Altruism and Volunteerism 273


In the basis of the Utilitarian philosophy is the Hobbesian approach to humannature of homo homini lupus (a man to a man is a wolf) where humans were perceivedas calculators of self-interests, driven by pleasure and suffering (Batson, 1991).Utilitarian philosophers defined what is good as what achieves the greatestbenefits, and maintained that benefits can be pleasures, preferences andsatisfaction. Utilitarianism is consequentialist, since its main argument is that theright thing to do is the one that leads to the best results in terms of welfare andpleasure.

As for altruism, Mill (1861) argued that the Utilitarian morality doesrecognize in human beings the power of scarifying their own greatest good forthe good of others; it only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself good(Chapter 2, paragraph 17). According to Mill, altruism is a result of socializationand people may allegedly be altruistic, if they be brought up to believe that altruismcould benefit them (socially, personally or by God) or, alternatively, that notacting altruistically may lead to punishment. Thus the motive to help others isbasically egoistic.

Adam Smith (17231790) further asserted that altruism occurs when one feelsdistress facing anothers suffering. According to Smith, the power that underliesaltruistic behavior is the desire to reduce this distress, as well as the desire toimprove our social image and to avoid social and self-censure. Therefore, altruisticpersons do not help in order to benefit others, but rather out of a desire to receivebenefits, 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 ofa more fundamental and egoistic one (Batson, 1991). In his General Introduction toPsychoanalysis, Freud (1920) explained that children love themselves, and onlythrough a socialization process do they learn to love others. Children even lovetheir parents simply because they need them, out of egoistic motives. Only laterin life do love and egoism separate. Freud described the importance of aggressionin 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 isrequired: the super-ego. Thus, when people realize that the ego cannot be fullysatisfied and that aggression toward others is undesirable, they turn theiraggression toward themselves and produce guilt. As for altruism, Freud explainedin Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), that the individual development is a productof the interplay between the struggle for happiness (egoism) and the impulsetoward merging with others in the community (altruism). The super-ego,through an instituting restriction, represses the selfish needs, and altruism



develops, either as a result of guilt or as the product of values and social standardslearned 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-disciplinesin 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 thatactions are ultimately carried out to maximize the level of ones own pleasure andto minimize ones own pain (Mees & Schmitt, 2008).

Developmental Psychology

Developmental psychology was influenced by the notion that egoism andaggression mellow as a child grows older, and also by the concept that altruism isactually 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 ofaltruism, and the manners in which aging reduces egocentric impulse. Develop-mentalists have examined the manner in which children come to feel moralemotions such as guilt and empathy; and how they become capable and willingto behave accordingly to rules and values without a need for external control(Kochanska & Aksan, 2004). However, some scholars in this discipline did arguethat 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 tothemselves. In his theory on the development of altruistic motivation (1975),Hoffman suggested that an altruistic motivation is developed in infants in severalstages: from empathic distress (the involuntary experiencing of another personspainful emotional distress) to sympathic distress, which is divided into three levels.At the first level, child knows that others are separate physical entities but doesnot realize that they have thoughts and feelings different from his own, thus, thechild can sense the distress of others, and tries to comfort them in the same wayhe or she likes to be comforted. At the second level, the child becomes aware ofothers as sources of thoughts and feelings and tries comforting them in means thatare suited to their individual situations. The final level occurs when the child canbe sympathetic to the overall life situation others. In 1979, Hoffman argued thatempathic 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 comfortanother in a helpful manner (see more about empathy and altruism in differentstages of childhood, Hoffman 1975, 1979).

Piliavin and Charng (1990) explained that the ability to help others increasesover a life-time: as children grow older they develop empathy and social respon-sibility. Based on Banduras theory of social learning (1963, 1977), Piliavin (2000)



asserted that altruism develops through learning and parental modeling. Thus,children that were exposed to altruistic behavior tended to demonstrate suchbehavior themselves. Furthermore, the most effective learning of altruism bychildren is by practice, and therefore childrens participation in the altruistic andvoluntary activity of their parents, as well as volunteering in school, may lead toan earlier development of an altruistic self.

Krebs (1982; Krebs & Van-Hesteren, 1994) captured altruism as a continuumranging from completely self-centered behaviors on the one hand, and completelyalter-centered behaviors on the other. Based on scholars who dealt with humandevelopment (such as Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, and Kegan), Krebs explainedthat peoples ability to understand others changes over time, and thus, in differentstages of life, people differ in their social abilities (even if they do not alwaysbehave accordingly). Krebs suggested a model of seven stages or levels of altru-ism, and in each stage a person gets closer to the altruistic end of the continuum.The stages move from egocentric accommodation (mainly to relieve distressand fulfill safety needs) and instrumental cooperation, to mutual altruism(sensitivity to others in general, fulfilling role obligations) and conscientiousaltruism (pro-social behavior guided by an internal sense of social responsibility);until one reaches autonomous altruism (based on internal high values) andintegrated altruism (full identification with humanity). Very few reach the laststage: universal self-sacrificial love.

Zahn-Waxler (Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990; Zahn-Waxler, 1991;Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992) argued that the oldconceptions of children as egoistic are not necessarily true, and that pro-socialbehaviors and attitudes can develop in early childhood, due to environment(socialization or parental emotional state) or temperament (character orpersonality). As early as two years of age, children can show (a) the cognitivecapacity to interpret physical and psychological states of others, (b) the emotionalcapacity to experience, affectively, the state of others, and (c) the behavioralrepertoire 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 influenced research onage and volunteering behavior (see Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000). Some scholarsargued that the tendency to volunteer increases with age, and therefore peoplevolunteer more as they retire. In addition to the leisure time, which increases inold 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 bornegoistic 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



older age tend to make decisions and behave according to patterns formedfrom a younger age. Indeed, studies show that people who volunteered when theywere younger, tend to so as they age. An Independent Sector (2001) survey foundthat 44 percent of adult volunteers began to do so in adolescence, and that peoplewho volunteered as adolescents have twice the chance to volunteer as adults.

Therefore, much research was done on volunteering in adolescence. Factorsthat may lead adolescents to volunteer were studied, and socialization to volun-teering 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 motivationsof youth to volunteer. Schondel and Boehm (2000) found that, in general, youthmotivation to volunteer was similar to that of older volunteers while Haski-Leventhal, Ronnel, York and Ben-David (2008) found that adolescents haddifferent motivations and that social motives were uniquely strong (also see:Jones, 2000; Omoto et al., 2000). Volunteering was found to have a positiveimpact on adolescents success in school, and it helped reduce several behavioralproblems, such as substance abuse, violence and early pregnancy (Schondel etal., 1995; Uggen & Janikula, 1999).

Social Psychology

Studies on altruism in social psychology are based on the notion that prosocialbehavior, as any behavior, is a result of the interaction between a person and hisor her environment (for example, Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004). Such studiesemphasized social norms and values, emotional reactions, situational factors andsocial relations between helpers and receivers (Batson, 1991; Monroe, 1996).Monroe (1996) explained that altruism is a result of an interactive decision-making process in which the characteristics of the helper connect with those ofthe 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 objectsand behaviors, to themselves and others, and develop and pass on these meaningsby interaction and communication. Furthermore, people strive to know othersinterpretations of their own behavior. Mead explained that moral behavior is aresult of peoples capability to see themselves from the others points of view, andof their desire for reassurance.

However, according to Khalil (2004), writers who used the symbolic interactiontheory failed to explain why different people react to the same situation differ-ently. 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 personalityaspects.



What Makes an Altruist: Altruism and Personality Issues

A small number of writers assumed that there is an altruistic or prosocialpersonality (Allen & Rushton, 1983; Oliner & Oliner, 1988). By studying personalitytraits, such as the Big Five (or the five 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 inNazi-occupied Europe during World War II, and came to the conclusion thatthere is an altruistic personality, which includes several characteristics, such asbeing empathetic and generous. Other studies pointed to a strong self image, selfefficacy, inner locus control, and a low need of appraisal. Moral norms andcommitment to such norms, a sense of responsibility and a low desire for freeriding were also correlated to altruism (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Empathy isrelated to prosocial and altruistic behavior in two possible manners. First, byidentifying with the other, one may feel secondary distress, and thus the desire tohelp is aimed to reduce ones own distress. Alternatively, empathy can create asincere desire to help. If the aim is to reduce ones own distress, then the givenhelp may be done by others or be ineffective.

An interesting explanation to empathic behavior and altruism is based on theAttachment Theory of Bowlby (1969), according to which human beings are bornwith attachment behavioral system that motivates them to seek proximity topeople who will protect them (attachment figures). Theoretically, people who havethe benefits of secure social attachment (based on good care-giving system in earlychildhood), find it easier to perceive and respond to other peoples suffering(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Several studies demonstrated that compassionatefeeling and values, as well as altruistic behavior, are promoted by attachmentsecurity (Mikulincer et al., 2005; Gillath et al., 2005).

An additional personal perception that may influence altruism is thepsychological sense of community, which was defined by Sarason (1974: 1) asa sense that one belongs in, and is meaningfully a part of a larger collectivity.McMillan (1996: 315) later defined it as the spirit of belonging together, a feelingthere is an authority that can be trusted, an awareness that trade and mutualbenefit come from being together. An enhanced sense of community benefits thecommunity, encourages trust and generates a feeling of belonging among itsmembers (Omoto & Snyder, 2002).

Altruism and Situational Factors

Research shows that certain situations (and their interpretations) are related topeoples readiness to help. For example, people will be more willing to help aftera disaster rather than in day-to-day situations (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Another



important situational factor is the number of other people who are present andcould give help. Darley and Latane (1968) presented the bystander effect: apsychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in anemergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when heor she is alone.

Additional situational factors may impact the decision to help, such as thecharacteristics and state of the needy: women tend to receive more help thanmen, and the more that the victim is perceived as helpless, the more chancesactual help will arrive (Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Relationships between helpersand beneficiary and the existence of former acquaintances can also lead peopleto help (Oliner & Oliner, 1988).

Impact of Social Psychology on the Study of Volunteerism

Several studies examined personality traits and their impact on volunteering (seePenner, 2004), and found that empathic ability, self-efficacy, inner locus control,strong morality and self image influence 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 ofhelpfulness and other-oriented empathy (feeling responsible for the welfare ofothers). People with prosocial personalities tend to volunteer twice as muchwhen volunteering requires overcoming difficulties and obstacles (Herman &Usita, 1994; Lau et al., 2004; Spitz & McKinnon, 1993). Regarding attachmentstyle and volunteering, some studies show that avoidant attachment is related to lessvolunteering 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 communityis also an indicator of further volunteering (Okum & Michel, 2006). It is culturalcapital, which along with human capital (e.g. education and income) and socialcapital (networks), predicts volunteering (Wilson & Musick, 1998). Haski-Leventhal,Ben-Arieh, and Melton (2008) found that neighborly volunteering in Americanrural areas was enhanced by participants strong sense of community.

It is interesting to note that similar personality traits impact both altruism andvolunteerism, and therefore we may conclude that people with a prosocial per-sonality would tend to help, whether through spontaneous altruistic behavior orthrough organized voluntary action.

The concept of behavior as a result of the person-environment interactionentered the study of volunteerism only recently. Penner (2002) suggested atheoretical model which combines personal factors (such as socio-demography,values, attitudes, prosocial personality and motivations) and situational, organi-zational and social factors to explain volunteering, the decision to volunteer anddifferent stages in volunteering.



Social psychology also influenced the study on motivations to volunteer, whichhas been defined as internal, psychological forces that move people to overcomeobstacles and become involved in volunteer activity (Clary et al., 1996: 486).Motivation to volunteer is the most studied aspect of volunteering, as so manyscholars strived to explain the gap between the egocentric approach and volun-teering (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 severalmotives, altruistic and egoistic alike (see Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991), whichmay imply that pure altruism is impossible or unlikely. Different writers haveoffered different categories to these motivations: Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen(1991) presented the three dimensional model, consisting of altruism, egoism andsocial motivation. Yeung (2004) suggested the octagonal model, which describesfour motivational dimensions: getting-giving; action-thought; newness-continuity;and proximity-distance.

Another important contribution of social psychology to the study of volunteerismis the functional approach (Katz, 1960), according to which we adapt and alterour attitudes during our life to fulfill different psychological functions. Clary,Snyder and colleagues (Clary et al., 1996; Omoto & Snyder, 1993) have proposedthe functional approach and employed it in the study of volunteerism. Itemphasizes the diversity of motives that underlie volunteer behavior and showsthat the same volunteer behavior can serve different functions for differentindividuals. Clary and others (1996) have identified six major motives forvolunteer service: Expression of Values (acting on the belief of the importanceof helping others); Understanding (to understand others or oneself); Career(enhancing career opportunities or skills); Social (to meet the normativeexpectations of others); Self-Esteem (to feel good about oneself); and Protectivemotive (to relieve or escape negative or aversive feelings). Studies have suggestedthat matching motives to volunteer activities results in higher performance ratingsand greater satisfaction with service and that some motives are better predictorsof 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-Americansociologist, who established the research center on volunteerism, linked altruismand love, and described the different aspects of both: ethical, religious, biological,psychological and social. Sorokin (1965) perceived helping and giving in a com-munity as love. Kropotkin (18421921), also born in Russia, attributed the centralrole in human moral development to altruism. Kropotkin established the socialtheory, which conceivesmutual help to be a basic trait of all living beings (including



animal herds) and not as a result of culture or civilization. In Mutual Aid: A Factorof Evaluation, Kropotkin (1902) explained that altruism has a major role in ourmoral development. He disagreed with Darwin, who said that nature is all abouta struggle for existence, in which only the fittest survive. In Kropotkins visionsuch a struggle was only one aspect of nature which was balanced by an oppositeonespontaneous solidarity. Kropotkin believed that mutual help is a strong andnatural human trait, stronger than egoism or the search for power.

According to Shalev (2003), later in the 20th century sociologists generallyfound little interest in studying altruism, and only in the 1970s did such interestreemerge. The alter-centric approaches of Sorokin and Kropotkin disappeared,and the focus shifted to personal factors that may lead to altruistic behavior. Ifsocial psychologists looked at personality traits, sociologists studied aspects ofgroup, community, religion and socio-demographic features.

Collective Norms and Group Influence

People are social entities whose interactions with their social surroundings(from early childhood to adult life) shape their behavior, beliefs, values, and worldperspectives. The self evolves not as a distinct physiological or psychological entity,but as a social construct (Mead, 1934). Peoples affiliation group (be it family,community, or a congregation) play an important role in developing the normsand values of both the group and the individual. Group membership influencesbehavior through the mediating role of group norms. People will be more likelyto 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 normconformity. In traditional mechanistic societies, arguedDurkheim, the collectiveconsciousness entirely subsumes individual consciousness. Social norms are strongand social behavior is well-regulated. However, in modern organic societies,individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness, oftenfinding itself in conflict with the collective consciousness. Durkheim demonstratedthat, in more cohesive groups and communities, people better comply with thenorms of the group. Participation in collectivities is not only the result of groupcohesion, but also strengthens the sense of belonging to the group.

Durkheims theory of social norms can be interpreted in two ways. In the firstinterpretation, sometimes labeled as structural, social norms reside outside theindividual, and become visible through the actions of other members of onescommunity or group and therefore cohesion and group structure are most impor-tant. In the second interpretation, social norms reside within the individual, in hisor her beliefs and internalized value system. According to the second culturalinterpretation, individuals are more likely to obey social norms when they haveinternalized these norms through socialization (Bekkers, 2004).



Studies on the percentage of population involved in volunteer work show stabletrends in different countries (Hodgkinson, 2003; ONeil, 2001; Pearce, 1993;Penner, 2004; Wilson, 2000). For example, annually about a half of adult Americansvolunteer while only one-third of adult Europeans do so, and only 15 percentvolunteer in post-communist countries (Anheier & Salamon, 1999). As such, it ispossible that social norms and other characteristics of the society and communityin which one lives have an affect on both the altruistic tendency and volunteeringhabits. In previous studies of altruism and volunteering in different societies, boththe structural and cultural perspectives were taken into account: some have stu-died structural features such as community size and networking (Monroe, 1996;Pearce, 1993; Penner, 2004; Smith, 1994; Wilson, 2000) while others studiedcultural 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) defined values as belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-stateof existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conductor end-states of existence. Schwartz (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000) described tenpersonal values which impact our attitudes and behavior, among them the valueof benevolence: concern for others welfare, aspiration for responsibility andloyalty, honest relationships with others and lending a hand in a time of distress.We may assume that people with strong values of benevolence will demonstratestrong altruism and voluntary action.

Human and Social Resources

Alongside collective affiliation and norms, sociologists studied socio-demographicfactors and their impact on altruism and volunteerism such as: income, education,gender and age. Two theories on the relation of such factors to voluntary actionemerged: the dominant status approach and the social resources theory.

According to David Horton Smith (1994), the dominant status is defined bycomponents which are perceived as prestigious. Thus higher status in the WesternWorld is dominated by white men, with higher income and education, middleaged, who are active in church and in sports. Smith showed that the features ofthe dominant status are also related to volunteering. Wilson and Musick (1998)wrote about the contribution of social resources to volunteering, and explainedthat high social involvement depends on social capital (social networks, socialcontacts, and affiliation to church and other organizations) and human capital(education and income).



IMPACT OF SOCIOLOGY ON THE STUDY OF VOLUNTEERISM

The impact of sociology on the study of volunteerism can be seen by the vastbody 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 onthe socio-demographic factors of volunteers, and that, in general, peoplewith higher income, higher education, jobs and family tend to volunteer more, tovolunteer in several organizations, to undertake leadership roles and to be morecommitted to their volunteer work. However, the literature review shows that thefindings are not definitive. Except for education, which was consistently found tobe related to volunteering (Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000), other socio-demographicfactors (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 beexplained according to the structural and cultural interpretations of Durkheimstheory. First, religious affiliation increases a feeling of belonging, a psychologicalsense of community, social networking and the visibility of the voluntary acts ofother members. In addition most religions promote the principles of helpingothers and love thy neighbor, and teach people values such as altruism andgiving. As such, in a congregational setting one is introduced to the religiousteaching and values of helping the needy and is surrounded by other memberswho are active in helping the needy (Cnaan, 2002).

Findings consistently show strong correlations between peoples social capitaland tendency to volunteer (Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000). Social contacts usuallyencourage volunteerism, either by direct request or by setting an example. Peopleare more likely to volunteer in response to a personal appeal, particularly from acurrent volunteer. It was found that people who are asked to volunteer are fourtimes more likely to do so than others (Penner, 2004). In fact, social capital canalso explain the impact of human capital (income and education) on volunteering,given that individuals with higher positions at work and those who attendedcollege have more social contacts. Furthermore, social networks provide rewardsfor helping behaviors, in the form of increasing positive attitudes from significantothers and increased prestige (warm-glow: Andreoni, 1995). Simon, Strumer,and Steffens (2000) showed that the more that a person has a collectiveidentification with others, the more she or he will work and volunteer for themembers of the in-group and be committed to it. Additionally, the volunteergroup is important for maintaining volunteers and enhancing their satisfactionand commitment (Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009).

Cross-cultural studies have showed that people in different countries havedifferent perceptions of volunteering and who is a volunteer (Handy et al., 2000;Meijs et al., 2003). Local cultures, political climate, government policy, history



and norms can all impact the trends of volunteering in a given country. AsAnheier and Salamon (1999) explained, volunteering is a cultural and economicphenomenon, and it is part of the way societies are organized and allocate socialresponsibilities, and how much participation they expect from citizens. Theauthors showed that in different countries and different political regimes peoplevolunteer at different rates and for different causes. Haski-Leventhal, Cnaan,Handy et al. (2008) showed that students vocational choice impacted theirtendency to volunteer, more than other background factors, but that the wayvocational choice impacted the tendency to volunteer varied in different countriesand cultures.

Sociologists also studied the personal values that lead to volunteering. Shure(1991) described three catalysts that enhance volunteering: individual and groupnorms; 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,manifestedin the importance placed on civic and community action; in a belief that peopleought to give and help; and in a feeling of universality. Smith (1994) found thatvolunteering was related to values of integrity, patriotism, democracy, politicalinvolvement, 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 ofrelying 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 thecollective 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 affectedthe study of altruism. Not only does the mainstream in economics see people asegocentric creatures, but also as those who have enough information and abilityto make calculated decisions. Altruism becomes a product with a price tag, as wellas with a potential profit.

Knox (1999) explained that, according to this approach, only a person whohelps others out of egoistic motives, for his or her own good, is rational andtruthful. As such, it is irrational and senseless for a lawyer who earns $250 perhour to volunteer in an activity that is worth one tenth of that amount: it wouldbe more sensible to work for another hour and donate the money. Monroe(1996) asserted that, according to economists, altruism becomes a short termstrategy, which aims to gain some good for the altruist, be it different benefits oravoiding guilt.



The main impact of economics on the study of altruism and volunteerism hasbeen the adoption of Blaus theory of social exchange (1967). Blau was a socialpsychologist, but the theorys foundations are the homo economicus perceptions. Thebasic concept in the social exchange theory is that people who give and helpothers expect something in return. An individual who helps another creates afeeling of obligation. In order to relieve him/herself from this obligation, thebeneficiary will try to reward his or her helper. If each of them perceives thereceived 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 decisionsand 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 thebenefits they receive. But beneath this seeming selflessness an underlying egoism can be discovered; the tendencyto 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 componentsthat are missing from economic exchange relationships. Even according to thesocial exchange theory, people act for some future obscure benefit, but, since theycannot assure such a benefit, social exchange requires trust. Thus, socialexchange, although it may be derived from purely egoist motives, creates trust insocial systems. Collard (1978, 1983) called for moral economical behavior, andargued that altruism is a necessary condition for such morality. According toCollard, mutual trust is a necessary but not sufficient condition for moral behaviorin economical life. However, it should be noted that what Collard referred to asaltruism also included paying progressive tax, which does not completely fall intothe above definitions of altruism.

The Impact of Economics on the Study of Volunteerism

Many writers on volunteerism have based their explanations of volunteering onthe social exchange theory (Black & DiNitto, 1994; Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen,1991; Qureshi et al., 1983; Wilson & Musick, 1999; Wilson, 2000). Thus, volunteersare perceived as people who give their time to help others in order to receivesomething in return: satisfaction, prestige, appraisal or social approval. Suchbenefits can be intrinsic or extrinsic (e.g. symbols of appraisal, material rewardsor training; see Cnaan and Amrofel, 1994; Gidron, 1978). Wilson (2000)explained that social exchange underlies volunteering on two levels: on the firstlevel, a person receives help (for themselves or their close ones) from society whenit 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



and, by volunteering today, they create credit to rightfully ask for societys helpin the future.

Relying on exchange theories to explain volunteerism led to a vast number ofstudies on the benefits and rewards related to volunteering, showing thatvolunteers reported different actual and expected intrinsic and extrinsic benefitsfrom volunteering (Cnaan & Amrofell, 1994; Mostyn, 1983). Volunteers reporteddifferent benefits to be of importance: appraisal and approval (Haski-Leventhalet al., 2008); training and career enhancement (Zakour, 1994); responding todifferent needs (Miller, 1990); and economically worthwhile benefits (Wilson &Musick, 1999). Cnaan and Amrofell (1994) divided volunteering benefits into fivecategories: tangible or material rewards that are not pay-for services; internalrewards and a good feeling about oneself; social interaction rewards; norms andsocial pressure (relieved); and avoidance rewards. In addition to the perceivedbenefits of volunteering, Wilson (2000) reviewed actual benefits and positiveconsequences such as better physical and mental health, addressing socialproblems (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 theirvolunteering work is profitable, then the costs and difficulties of volunteeringshould also be acknowledged. The literature indicates three major costs related tovolunteering: less available time and a feeling that volunteering takes more timethan expected (Blake & Jefferson, 1992; Omoto & Snyder, 1993); stigma andnegative social reaction, due to working with controversial organizations orpopulations (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; Haski-Leventhal, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2004). As Chinman and Wandersman (1999)showed, costs and benefits are also related to the kind of organization and rolethe volunteers undertake.

Economists tried to explain altruism by offering formula to calculate thecost-benefit ratio of altruism, and by focusing on the bottom line: the economicprofit 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 gaveapproximately 15.5 billion hours a year, representing the equivalent of over 9million 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 andshowed that an activity was often considered volunteering, if the costs involvedwere high. Thus the concept of net-cost in volunteering emerged. Researchersused economics to study volunteering, but the results of these studies showed thatpeople actually perceive volunteering as non-economical.

Is volunteering economical? Knox (1999) disagreed with the narrow economistapproach to study altruism and volunteering. In his article, the volunteers folly and



the socio-economic man, his argument was that volunteering is not folly, but ratherthat economic rationality is too narrow and therefore fails to give a satisfactoryexplanation to the altruistic choice to volunteer instead of just working anddonating the money. Knox thought that volunteers can be truly altruistic andstill decide to give time instead of money. He offered a wider definition, not takingfor 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 develop-ment of mankind, an alternative to the theological explanations, and impactedthe emergence of other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and biology. Oneof the basic concepts in Darwins theory is the survival of the fittest, throughstruggling for existence over resources with other species or within ones own. Assuch, from an evolutionary point of view, it is difficult to explain why people risktheir life to save others.

However, altruism and self-sacrifice do exist in nature. We may even findaltruistic behavior among animals: a bee sacrificing itself to protect the queensupposedly acts against natures laws and its basic survival instincts. Altruisticbehavior, human or not, challenged the Darwinist theory in two ways. First, howcan we explain such behavior which is supposedly against our nature: sacrificingoneself instead of struggling for existence? And second, how is it that people whoact for the benefit of others survive no less than those who do not, and that groupsthat encourage altruism survive even more than groups that do not?

Socio-biologists defined people as altruists if they give more weight to othersoutcomes than to their own in deciding on game strategies (Piliavin & Charng,1990). Socio-biology addresses altruism only from the point of survival andgenetic outcome, without dealing with moral questions (Sigmund & Hauert,2002), and it does so through twomain concepts: kin selection and group selection.

Kin-selection is acting altruistically for a group of the same genes to assurethe survival of the genes (Piliavin & Charng, 1990; Sigmund & Hauert, 2002),such as parents who die to protect their children. Group selection is helpingpeople who are parts of ones affiliation group (even with no genetic relation) inorder to maintain the survival of an endangered small group (for example, Jewshelping Jews). Although kin-selection and group-selection can explain bothhuman and non-human altruism, one may still wonder if it really is altruism (sincethe definitions of altruism above exclude helping relatives), and what explanationcan we offer for the many instances of human altruism aimed at total strangers?

Fehr (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004) agreed that wemay find cooperation among animals as well, but asserted that human beings



differ from animals, since humans may help those outside their affiliation group.Such behavior may pose some questions on evolutionism, and additionalexplanations are needed. Thus, the idea of reciprocal selection emerged (Fehr& Rockenbach, 2004; Sigmund & Hauert, 2002). Reciprocal selection means thatpeople 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 egoisticindividuals. Giving up ones interests for the group is not evolutionary sensible, butit was found that strong reciprocity may enhance survival (Fehr & Fischbacher,2003). Sigmund and Hauert (2002) explained that economical ties can be almostas strong as genetic ones, regarding an individuals decision whether to give uphis or her resources for another. However, it is an uncertain investment, since wenever know for certain if the other whom we helped will indeed help us in thefuture.

Although this may remind us of the social exchange theory, the goodsexchangedhere are the survival chances of a person (or his/her relatives).However,socio-biology cannot yet fully explain altruism. Often people help others who areneither their relatives nor members of their affiliation group. Sometimes altruismis demonstrated for complete strangers, for people we do not know and surely donot know if they will ever be able to help us in the future. Even the indirectreciprocal selection is not a full explanation, since not all helpers believe incosmic justice.

Recently, socio-biological explanations focused on genetic influence on altruismand empathy. One study examined behavior among 9424 pairs of twins, toinvestigate the genetic and environmental influences on prosaically behavior fromearly to middle childhood, and concluded that genetic effects account for changeand continuity in prosocial behavior, while environment contributes mainly tochange (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Other studies tried to actually point to specificgenes related to altruism and prosocial behavior. It was found that the length ofthe gene AVPR1a RS3 was related to altruist behavior (allocation of funds in theDictator Game). Interesting enough, a short version of this gene is related toautism (See Israel et al., in press; Knafo et al., 2007).

Since all of the above socio-biological rationalizations to altruism would not fallunder 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 egocentricapproach which dominates the general approach to volunteering and to the vaststudy 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, ofvolunteerism in different disciplines (psychology, sociology, economics, and



socio-biology) has mainly been based of the egocentric perceptions of man: arational, economical being who, above all, acts to enhance self-interest. Theegocentric approach is so inherent that very rarely does anyone question it.Instead, scholars simply take it as given, make definitions and design researchquestions accordingly, and strive to close the gap between homo economicus and theundeniable human phenomenon of freely giving time and money to others oreven of self-sacrifice to save strangers.

Instead of focusing on these gaps, a new approach can be offered: the alter-centric approach, accepting the possibility that people sometimes act on behalf ofothers simply because they care about humanity and that altruism is one of theircore values. Indeed, if we were all egoistic, working for our own interests andsatisfaction, then we no longer need to speak about egoism. We rather need toask why some people derive satisfaction by helping and giving, while others deriveit from self-centered behavior. That is, the egocentric approach contradicts itself:if everyone is egoistic, then we only have to differ between those who enhancetheir own good by helping others (which should be called altruistic) and those whodo 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 butout of duty; only then could ones action be considered moral. Our motivation toact is neither altruistic nor egoistic, but should be a result of our moral duty. Inthe Ground Work of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785/1889), Kant articulated fourprinciples to the categorical imperative, two of which can explain how we needto perceive altruism. The principle of Universal Law is: Act only on that maximthrough which you can at the same time will that it should become a universallaw (Kant, 1785: 88). We should behave with others in the same manner wewould like others to behave, and, therefore, behaving altruistically is actingaccording to this principle, since this is the manner in which we would likeeveryone to act towards us. The second principle is that of End in Itself, whichsays: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (. . . ) never simply as ameans, but always at the same time as an end (p. 96). Thus, pure altruism, whichsees the other as an object in itself and not as a means to achieve benefits for onesself, 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 acontinuum (Krebs & Van-Hesteren, 1994) not as a dichotomy. Krebs suggested



that self and other are not necessarily psychologically separate entities, and thataltruism is a continuum between maximum enhancement of self, and maximumenhancement of others. Usually, peoples actions are directed toward the enhance-ment of varying combinations of self-in-others and others-in-self. On thiscontinuum, relative altruism is measured by two criteria: exclusiveness (exclusivelyhelping others versus exclusively helping self) and quantity of helping (maximizedor not). Thus, behavior can be mainly altruistic, even if it is not exclusively ormaximally so.

In The Heart of Altruism, Monroe (1996) agreed that altruism should be perceivedas a conceptual continuum, which allows us to view self-interest andaltruism as the two poles, between which human behavior oscillates. The worldis not divided into altruists and non-altruists, she wrote, but rather the potentialfor altruism exists in all people (1996: 13). Monroe distinguished between purealtruism (which is helping another, even at risk to ones self) and particularaltruism (which is helping only certain groups or people, perceived as worth thealtruistic 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 volunteeringis neither egoistic nor altruistic, but usually a combination of both. The variousstudies on motivation to volunteer suggest that people usually volunteer out ofboth, and that the altruism-egoism dichotomy is artificial.

Alter-Centric Theories and Models

Although the ego-centric approach is fairly dominant in the study of altruism andvolunteerism, over the years theories and models emerged which emphasized thealter-centric approach. Detailed are some prominent books and articles written inthe alter-centric approach.

Titmuss (1970) recognized the importance of altruism to society. In The GiftRelationship, 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 definition above is not reallyaltruism) to the voluntary community donor. Titmuss believed that human livescan be improved by human actions. His main argument was that we cannotunderstand human behavior and needs without recognizing altruism as a humanneed, not only of the beneficiaries, but also of the giver. Titmuss thought there isan impulse to help others and to need others. Therefore, a true welfare state isnot only examined by what it gives to its citizens, but also by the opportunities itpresents so people can satisfy their need to give to others. However, Titmuss didnot believe in pure altruism, acting spontaneously without any self-interest. In hisopinion, there has to be a sense of duty, an agreement or an interest to guide thegiver.



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 KantianDeontological moral philosophy, Nagel claimed that altruism (which he definedas a willingness to act in consideration of others interests) is a moral virtue which ismanifested in moral behavior, and others are the subject of such behavior. Nagelbelieved that altruism itself depends on recognizing the reality of others, and onregarding oneself as one individual amongmany. People have a direct and rationalinterest in helping others, without the need of moderators such as sympathy,justice and rewards, and therefore altruism and rationality are not distinct. Similarto Kants principle of universalism, Nagel thought that we want to act towardothers in the samemanner that we would like others to act toward us, and thereforealtruistic society is whatmost people desire. Thus, altruism is an inner duty, and canonly 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 egoisticapproach became so rooted in peoples minds, that altruism is perceived asremarkable and unnatural. The authors discussed the ego-centric approachin psychology and social-biology (evolutionary altruism) to formulate thehypothesis according to which humans may act to benefit others, even throughself-sacrifice, only because they care about the well-being of others as an ultimatepurpose. Sober and Wilson argued that individuals can evolve to benefit theirgroup, and that group selection can evolve helping behaviors that individualsproduce via mechanisms that are psychologically egoistic. Individual selectioncan evolve self-serving behaviors that individuals produce via mechanisms thatare psychologically altruistic.

In psychology, Batson (1991, 2009) argued that pure altruism is possible.Reviewing the literature on altruism in psychology and philosophy, Batsonpointed that the ego-centric approach is too dominant. Through experiments, hedemonstrated that people are likely to help others when empathy occurs.

In The Heart of Altruism, Monroe (1996) showed that the altruism described byNagel, as a way of perceiving others, does in fact exist, calling it the altruisticperspective. Monroe studied the behavior of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews inWorld War II and showed that there was no difference between rescuers andnon-rescuers regarding religion, family background, or community factors. Thus,Monroe rejected the socio-cultural explanations to altruism and determined thataltruist people differ from others by their moral perception, and by altruisticperspectives. 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: areflex, 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



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 thataltruism 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 prosocialcharacter which includes personal traits. Scholars who follow the alter-centricapproach pay little attention to the decision-making and needs of the benefactorhim/herself, but rather accept that the actors altruistic action is almost dictatedby moral and obligatory dictums. According to Khalil, only a few authors havewritten on altruism and volunteerism according to the alter-centric approach.

The fact that some of the alter-centric models and theories received a strongcriticism and provoked controversy can testify for the dominance of the ego-centricapproach. Additionally the impact of the alter-centric approach on the study ofvolunteerism was limited, as will be discussed below.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTED FURTHER STUDY

Although altruism is defined as acting on behalf of others, it was here demon-strated that the study of altruism in different disciplines is generally based on anegocentric approach and a homo economicus perception of man, seen as a rationalbeing who acts foremost to fulfill his or her own needs and interests. Acceptingthe Utilitarian approach to morality, it was understood that people only act toenhance their own happiness and avoid suffering. Such an approach hasinfluenced the study of volunteerism, the research questions as well as perceptionsof the volunteer.

Psychological egoism, beginning with Freud, has also found its way into devel-opmental psychology and social psychology. In developmental psychologythere are theories of the stages and development of altruism (usually according toones life cycle), based on the idea that a person is born egoistic, and only throughtime and socialization learns to control these impulses. This led to a study onvolunteering and age, and volunteering in adolescence and in retirement. Socialpsychologists have studied altruism as an interaction between a person andenvironment: personality traits and other virtues on the one hand, and situationalfactors on the other. That is an unusual situation, in which unique personalfeatures must exist in order for altruistic behavior to take place. Thus the relation-ship between prosocial personality and volunteering has been studied, includingthe impact of different personal and situational factors on the decision to volun-teer. Psychology has also led to a major interest in motivation to volunteer andthere are numerous theories, models and studies on the subject.

Sociologists have contributed a number of key concepts and theories to thestudy of altruism, such as group norms, structural and cultural feature of a



community, and core values. It has explained altruism as acting according tonorms and expectations as well as values. Additional explanations to altruismhave been based on socio-demographic factors. Sociologys impact of the study ofvolunteerism is mainly expressed by the vast data on socio-demographic factors,and by the concept of social resources to volunteering. Additionally, there areseveral studies on the value of volunteers, and cross-cultural studies comparingvolunteering trends in different countries, political regimes, and cultures.

The concept of homo economicus derives, naturally, from perceptions of altruismby economists, and is best expressed in the social exchange theory. This theoryis the starting point for several studies on volunteering, and has led to broadresearch on costs and benefits of volunteering, the net-cost theory and theattempts to measure the economic value of volunteering. However, this approachfails to explain why people act on behalf of others when there is no chance ofsocial 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 altruisticbehavior, especially self-sacrifice.

The approach of socio-biology to altruism is based on the notion that in thestruggle for existence, people (and animals) would do anything to assure self-survival and the survival of close ones (mainly genetically). As such, socio-biology hasexplained altruism through the concepts of kin-selection and group-selection. Sincethe two concepts cannot count for all altruistic behavior, the concept of reciprocity-selection was offered, which also cannot explain why people sometimes helpcomplete strangers while risking their own lives, when reciprocity is uncertain.

Therefore, it is clear that none of the four disciplines here studied can offer aninclusive theory of altruism, since they base most of their research on the percep-tion of rational, economical and utilitarian man. It is time to more broadlyacknowledge the possibility of a moral and alter-centered humanity, and to seethat not all altruism demonstratively serves the helper. First, altruism can beperceived as a continuum and not as a dichotomy. Second, an alter-centricapproach recognizes the impact of values, conscience and altruistic perspective onaltruistic attitudes and behavior.

Research on volunteerism which is based on the alter-centric approach is notoccupied so much by the question of why (why do people volunteer? What dothey gain?). Therefore it can deal with new aspects, such as the impact of volun-teering on society; the way volunteering changes the volunteer; the processes oneundergoes while volunteering; the meaning of volunteering; and the relationshipbetween the volunteer and the recipients.

Debbie Haski-LeventhalCentre for Social ImpactAustralian School of Business, UNSWLevel 6 East, UNSW, Kensington NSW [email protected]



Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank David Bar-Gal, Alan York andthe three anonymous reviewers of this article, for their helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Allen, N., & Rushton, J.P. (1983). The Personality of Community Mental HealthVolunteers. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 12(1), 3748.

Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow Versus Cold Prickle: The Effects of Positive and NegativeFraming 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? TheGerontologist, 11, 1317.

Atchley, R.C. (1989). A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging. Gerontologist, 29(2), 183190.

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 Pheno-

mena. 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 Differ-ences. Journal of Social Service Research, 20(1), 7397.

Blake, R., & Jefferson, S. (1992). Defection . . . Why? An Insight into the Reasons for VolunteersLeaving. 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 inCommunity Organizations: Review and Practical Implications. Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 28(1), 4664.

Clary, E.G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A Functional Analysis of Altruism and ProsocialBehavior: The case of Volunteerism. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12,119148.

Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A.A. (1996). Volunteers Motivations: Findings froma 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.



Cnaan, R.A., & Goldberg-Glen, R.S. (1991). Measuring Motivation to Volunteer inHuman Services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269284.

Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining Who is a Volunteer:Conceptual and Empirical Considerations. Nonprofit 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

638Cyr, 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. AnnualReview 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 Evolution-

ary 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 Ijzen-

doorn, M.H. (2005). Attachment, Caregiving, and Volunteering: Placing Volunteerismin 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-CostApproach 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 AmongVolunteers: 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 andVolunteerism: The Participants in the Strong Communities Initiative. Family and Com-munity Health, 31(2), 150161.

Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnaan., R., Handy, F., et al. (2008). Students Vocational Choicesand Voluntary Action: A 12-Nation Study. Voluntas.

Haski-Leventhal, D., Ronel, N., York, A., & Ben-David, B. (2008). Youth Volunteeringfor Youth: Who are They Serving, How are They Being Served. Children and YouthServices Review.



Herman, K.C., &Usita, P.M. (1994). Predicting Big Brother/Big Sister Volunteer Attritionwith 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: PlenumPublishers.

Hoffman, M.L. (1975). The Development of Altruistic Motivation. Paper Presented atthe 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. InternationalJournal 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). Mole-cular Genetic Studies of the Arginine Vasopressin 1a Receptor (AVPR1a) and theOxytocin Receptor (OXTR) in Human Behavior: From Autism to Altruism with SomeNotes in Between. Progress in Brain Research.

Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to Voluntarism: Family Socialization andStatus Transmission Models. Social Forces, 74, 271292.

John, O.P. (1990). The Big Five Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in theNatural 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, 3642.

Kant, I. (1785/1889). Ground Work of the Metaphysic of Morals.Katz, D. (1960). The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion Quar-

terly, 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 inAllocation of Funds in the Dictator Game and Postmortem Hippocampal mRNALevels 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 onAltruism, 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 anIntegrative 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 ConferenceProceedings, Wellington, New Zealand.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition andTheory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 624.



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 CollegePublishing.

Mees, U., & Schmitt, A. (2008). Goals of Action and Emotional Reasons for Action: AModern Version of the Theory of Ultimate Psychological Hedonism. Journal for theTheory 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? Percep-tions 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 andHelping. 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 andCommunities. 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 VolunteerCentre.

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: Theoret-

ical 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, 181197.

ONeil, M. (2001). Research on Giving and Volunteering: Methodological Considera-tions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 505514.

Pearce, J.L. (1993). Volunteers: The Organizational Behavior Of Unpaid Workers. London andNew-York: Routledge.

Penner, L.A. (2002). Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained Volun-teerism: 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 ofVolunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525537.



Piliavin, J.A. (2001). Sociology of Altruism and Pro-Social Behavior, In International Ency-clopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (pp. 411415). Oxford: Elsevier.

Piliavin, J.A., & Charng, H.W. (1990). Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory andResearch. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 2765.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New-York: Simon and Schuster.

Qureshi, H., Challis, D., & Davis, B. (1983). Motivations and Rewards of Helpers inthe 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: TheRole 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: CrossCultural Perspectives, (pp. 91110). New-York: Plenum Publishers.

Rokeach, M. (1969). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. SanFrancisco: 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, 177198.

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 andSociety, 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 PracticalApplication 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 andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 26, 497506.

Smith, D.H. (1981). Altruism, Volunteers and Volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary ActionResearch, 10(1), 2136.

Smith, D.H. (1994). Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteer-ing: A Literature Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243263.

Smit

altruism and volunteerism

Documents

study altruism

study of altruism

research of altruism

altruism question

perceptionsof altruism

defined altruism

altruistic act

volunteerism definedaltruism